Question about the significance of negative work

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the concept of negative work in physics, confirming that when object A does work W on object B, it is equivalent to object B doing negative work (-W) on object A. This relationship is rooted in the work-kinetic energy theorem, which states that the work done on an object results in a corresponding change in kinetic energy. The negative sign indicates that energy is transferred from one object to another, emphasizing that scalars, while directionless, can indeed be negative.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the work-kinetic energy theorem
  • Familiarity with scalar and vector quantities in physics
  • Basic knowledge of energy transfer concepts
  • Concept of work in a physical context
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the work-kinetic energy theorem in various physical scenarios
  • Explore examples of negative work in real-world applications
  • Learn about the differences between scalar and vector quantities in physics
  • Investigate energy conservation principles related to work
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators explaining work-energy concepts, and anyone interested in understanding energy transfer and its implications in physical systems.

Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
I am having some trouble understanding the significance of negative work.

If the work that I do on object X is W, is it equivalent to saying that object X does work on me equal to -W ?

After all, work is scalar, so I can't fathom the physical significance of negative work.

Also, according to the work-kinetic energy theorem, due to the way in which work and kinetic energy are both defined, when I do work W on an object X, its kinetic energy increases by W and my energy decreases by W. Isn't that equivalent to saying that the object did work of -W on me, since at least in terms of kinetic energy the two are equivalent?

All help on my understanding of this concept is appreciated.

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, what you stated is correct. The object does negative work on you. In a sense, the negative means that energy has been taken FROM the object in question (aka you). Remember, scalars can be negative! They just can't have direction. You might be confused because people in the early stages of physics courses will say that speed is a scalar and velocity is a vector, the former being unable to be positive, but this is specifically because of the way speed is defined; it is not a general property of scalars. I assume this is where the confusion lays?
 
Pengwuino said:
Yes, what you stated is correct. The object does negative work on you. In a sense, the negative means that energy has been taken FROM the object in question (aka you). Remember, scalars can be negative! They just can't have direction. You might be confused because people in the early stages of physics courses will say that speed is a scalar and velocity is a vector, the former being unable to be positive, but this is specifically because of the way speed is defined; it is not a general property of scalars. I assume this is where the confusion lays?

OK I get it so far. So if object A does work W on object B, then that is perfectly equivalent to saying that object B does work -W on object A?

BiP
 
That is correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K