Show PE to KE change in closed system is independent of initial velocity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating that the change from potential energy to kinetic energy in a closed system is independent of the inertial frame of reference. A specific example involving a compressed spring and two masses illustrates this principle, showing that momentum conservation holds true regardless of the frame of reference. The analysis employs Galilean transformations to establish that the equations governing energy changes remain consistent across different inertial frames. The key conclusion is that the relationship ΔU + ΔK = 0 is valid in both stationary and moving frames, confirming the independence of energy change from initial velocity. This reinforces the fundamental principles of mechanics in closed systems.
rcgldr
Homework Helper
Messages
8,917
Reaction score
672
Because of the kinetic energy and frames of reference thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=534883

I was wondering how to show that a change from potential to kinetic energy in a closed system is independent of the (inertial) frame of reference. I think the math below demonstrates this.

Example closed system: a compressed massless spring with potential energy ΔE and two masses. The compressed spring is released and accelerates the two masses, increasing the mechanical energy of the closed system by ΔE.

From frame of reference of the center of mass

m1 = mass 1
m2 = mass 2
v1 = final velocity of mass 1 wrt center of mass
v2 = final velocity of mass 2 wrt center of mass

It's a closed system so momentum is conserved

m1 v1 + m2 v2 = 0

total kinetic energy change in system

ΔE = 1/2 m1 v12 + 1/2 m2 v22

With the center of mass moving with respect to some inertial frame of reference:

v0 = velocity center of mass wrt frame
va = v1 + v0 = final velocity of mass 1 wrt frame
vb = v2 + v0 = final velocity of mass 2 wrt frame

It's a closed system so momentum is conserved

m1 va + m2 vb = (m1 + m2) v0

total kinetic energy change in system

ΔE = 1/2 m1 va2 + 1/2 m2 vb2 - 1/2 (m1 + m2) v02

ΔE = 1/2 m1 (v1 + v0)2 + 1/2 m2 (v2 + v0)2 - 1/2 (m1 + m2) v02

ΔE = 1/2 m1 (v12 + 2 v1 v0 + v02) + 1/2 m2 (v22 + 2 v2 v0 + v02) - 1/2 (m1 + m2) v02

ΔE = 1/2 m1 (v12 + 2 v1 v0) + 1/2 m2 (v22 + 2 v2 v0)

ΔE = 1/2 m1 v12 + 1/2 m2 v22 + m1 v1 v0 + m2 v2 v0

going back to momentum equation:

m1 va + m2 vb - (m1 + m2) v0 = 0

m1 (v1 + v0) + m2 (v2 + v0) - (m1 + m2) v0 = 0

m1 v1 + m2 v2 = 0

m1 v1 v0 + m2 v2 v0 = 0

ΔE = 1/2 m1 v12 + 1/2 m2 v22
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You showed that this works for the specific case of two masses connected with a compressed spring. You need to show that if ##\Delta U +\Delta K =0## in inertial frame of reference ##O## is true, then it is also true in inertial frame ##O'## that is moving with constant velocity ##u## relative to ##O##. This is how to do it in one dimension; it can be easily extended to three dimensions. The Galilean transformations are$$x'=x-ut~\rightarrow~dx'=dx-udt;~~v'=v-ut.$$Let ##F_c## be the sum of all conservative forces acting on the mass. The change in potential energy is the negative of the work done by the conservative forces. In the unprimed frame we have, $$\Delta U=-\int F_c dx~~\mathrm{and} ~~\Delta K=\frac{1}{2} m \left( v_f^2-v_i^2 \right)$$so that$$0=\Delta U +\Delta K=-\int F_c dx+\frac{1}{2} m \left( v_f^2-v_i^2 \right).$$Similarly,$$\Delta U'=-\int F_c dx'=-\int F_c (dx-udt)=-\int F_c dx+u\int F_cdt=\Delta U+uJ~~~~~(1)$$where ##J=\int F_cdt## is the impulse delivered to the mass. Also,$$\Delta K'=\frac{1}{2}m\left({v'}_f^2-{v'}_i^2 \right)=\frac{1}{2}m\left[(v_f-u)^2-(v_i-u)^2 \right]=\frac{1}{2}m\left[v_f^2-v_i^2-2u(v_f-v_i) \right]$$ $$\Delta K'=\frac{1}{2}m\left(v_f^2-v_i^2 \right) -mu\Delta v=\Delta K-uJ~~~~~(2)$$Adding equations (1) and (2) gives the desired result,$$\Delta U' +\Delta K' =\Delta U +\Delta K=0.$$
 
  • Like
Likes nasu
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...
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
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