Relation of objective probability and work potential

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between objective probability and work potential, questioning whether work can be defined without motion. It highlights that in physics, work potential is linked to mechanical motion and free energy, while in sociology and economics, "work" can refer to any change of state. The inquiry seeks a physical justification for this broader definition of work, suggesting that even changes at the quantum level involve motion. A proposition is made about measuring work potential through a system's improbability when it has access to a more probable state. The conversation also touches on the distinction between technical and colloquial uses of the term "work."
HainesB
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The question assumes that there really exists an objective probability such as disposition or propensity that is an extensive property of a state of affairs.

Usually the dissipation of a work potential is associated with the mechanical motion of a system, and work potential is the free energy in joules that is available for work.

In sociology and economics, however, "work" is used in a much looser sense as merely a change of state without necessarily implying motion. For example, "A student will soon find out that learning takes a lot of work". I am seeking a physical justification for this loose usage in which the resulting change in state does not involve motion.

It occurs to me that work overcomes forces, and all forces involve interchange of virtual particles such as electrons, protons and gravitons. So then one might conclude that any change of state involves motion at least at at the quantum level.

I want to know if it is true that a measure of work potential can be the value of a system's improbability, assuming its has access to a more probable state? If not, why not? Can this generalization be justified without recourse to quantum phenomena?

Haines Brown
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am seeking a physical justification for this loose usage in which the resulting change in state does not involve motion.
See "work energy relation" for work that does not involve (bulk) motion - but you may have to accept that there is no need for a physical justification for the different ways words are used in the English language.

Physics gets the technical term because of the looser social term, not the other way around.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top