Tackling the Work-Energy Theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the work-energy theorem, emphasizing the relationship between work, force, distance, acceleration, and time. It highlights that distance is influenced by acceleration and time, which leads to the conclusion that work is half the product of mass and velocity squared. The conversation also explores the derivation of kinetic energy and its connection to momentum, questioning the rationale behind the multiplication of acceleration and distance. Additionally, it discusses the integral formulation of work and its equivalence to the change in kinetic energy. Overall, the thread seeks clarity on the conceptual underpinnings of energy, work, and their mathematical representations.
omin
Messages
187
Reaction score
1
I'm trying to tackle the work-energy theorum.

It has occurred to me that the distance in work: Force x distance

is determined by the acceleration in the force variable, and time of force as well.

The distance, creates a halving of the final product of the Joule unit, because the distance is half the acceleration. I also see the distance is also a result of the time of force. A longer distance implies more time the force occured. So, acceleration and time result in the distance, but time is sort of embedded in the distance.

I've read, Work = KE: Force x distance = 1/2 mass x velocity ^2.

I see the 1/2ing property in Work, because the distance traveled at an acceleration rate is half, but how is the speed squared explained for the other part of KE representation?

I hope that made sense.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Energy does not make sense unless its units are the same as mass times speed squared. If you are not happy with the "squared", then you need to develop more intuition about energy. I'm not kidding; energy is an abstract quantity, not like volume (you can see), or force (you can feel).

A simple way to derive the result you want is using the formula from elementary physics:\Delta v^2=2ad. This works for a constant acceleration.

A better way that does not require a to be constant is the following (but you need to know calculus): W=\int Fdx=m\int adx=m\int {dv\over dt}dx=m\int {dv\over dx}{dx\over dt}dx=m\int vdv=m\Delta v^2/2
 
\Delta v^2=2ad, seems a bit cumbersome. My textbook explains something similar by comparing momentum to energy, but saying that kinetic energy is equal to momentum squared divided by twice the mass. I just don't get the round about way that shows the corelation.

Since I've asked the question, something occurred to me in looking at the equation, that seems to be a bit more directly representative.

If I think in terms of KE by isolating the the magnitude of acceleration and the magnitude of distance traveled, I see the work acceleration and distance magnitudes corelate exactly.

In terms of there respective magnitudes:

In Work = mass(acceleration)(distance).

In KE = mass (velocity) and either (distance) or (average velocity)

The acceleration magnitude is multiplied by the distance or average velocity magnitude the acceleration produces. Why they are multiplied is my next question. Do you know why?
 
You could use lineal momentum. krab used the chain rule.

W = \int F dx

Newton's 2nd Law

F = \frac{dP}{dt}

Constant Mass

F = m \frac{dv}{dt}

Substituting

W = m \int \frac{dv}{dt} dx

You know

v = \frac{dx}{dt}

so

vdt = dx

Substituing again:

W = m \int \frac{dv}{dt} vdt

W = m \int vdv

W =\frac{m \Delta v^2}{2}

Work done is equal to the change in the kinetic energy

W = \Delta K

For your books way:

\frac{P^2}{2m} = \frac{mv^2}{2} \frac{m}{m}

Same thing.
 
Last edited:
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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
16K
Replies
16
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Back
Top