qbslug said:
thanks for clearing that up.
So absolute kinetic energy by itself has physical meaning but only potential energy difference have physical meaning? I thought there would be some conceptual symmetry between the two.
Doesn't kinetic energy of an object also depend on the speed of the observer though according to relativity?
So we can say potential energy depends where we set potential to 0 and kinetic energy depends on the velocity of observer (where we set velocity to 0)?
There is a particular case where kinetic energy and potential energy are in a rather symmetrical relation to each other: the physics of liquid mirror telescopes (or more generally the shape of the surface of a rotating liquid.)
In the case of a liquid mirror telescope the liquid is usually mercury, as it reflects so well. The first attempts at making a mercury mirror used a bowl filled with mercury, positioned on a turntable that was spinning as uniformly as possible.
The surface of the liquid then assumes a shape with a parabolic cross section. For particles at the surface the following is valid:
- The kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the distance to the central axis of rotation.
- The potential energy is proportional to the square of the distance to the central axis of rotation.
In this case, if you define the lowest point, (the center point) as zero point of potential energy, then at each distance to the central axis of rotation kinetic energy and potential energy have the same value.
The parabolic shape is the shape with the property of that kinetic/potential energy equilibrium. For instance, when there is a sudden change in spinning rate the liquid will ripple and wobble, but if the spinning rate remains uniform the liquid will once again settle into an equilibrium state.
Cleonis