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
8,923
Reaction score
675
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
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top