This might be a silly question, that doesn't make sense, but I'll post

  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between kinetic energy, velocity, and the effects of a uniform force field. It highlights that a higher initial velocity results in a smaller decrease in velocity when escaping the field, due to kinetic energy being proportional to the square of velocity. The conversation questions why energy, rather than time-related impulse, governs the decrease in velocity during this process. It emphasizes that while energy conservation applies, momentum conservation does not in this scenario. Ultimately, the discussion seeks clarity on how energy conservation aligns with kinematic interpretations of motion under a force field.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
This might be a silly question, that doesn't make sense, but I'll post it anyways...
When you escape a uniform force field, the greater velocity you have to start with, the less will the total decrease in velocity be since Ekin is proportional to v squared. Now if you want to understand this using kinematic terms, it would be that, the less velocity you have the longer time you will be under the influence of the acceleration of the force field and thus "lose" more velocity.
Now, since this has then something to do with time, why is it, that it is, the energy that determines the decrease in velocity. Because I have always learned that energy is something that has to do with the space, while impulse has something to do with time. i.e. one is integrated over space other over time. I think analytical mechanics will later give me a more fundamental understanding of all this, but could someone meanwhile tell me why it's not wrong at all, that energy determines the total decrease in velocity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Conservation of energy applies to your example but not conservation of momentum.

for example, rising from the Earth and returning , total KE and PE remains constant neglecting friction.
 


yes yes, that I totally get. But I thought the kinematic interpretation is just something with time, so thus I don't see why that should match using energy conservation that has something to with the force over a distance..
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top