What Is Work? Understanding Its Fundamentals & Relationship to Energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter aftershock
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
AI Thread Summary
Work is fundamentally defined as the product of force and displacement, which is essential for understanding energy transfer in physical systems. The relationship between force and distance is governed by the inverse square law, indicating that forces weaken with distance, affecting how work is performed. Energy conservation is crucial, as it ensures that work cannot be done without an external energy source; otherwise, objects would move against forces without any input. The example of using a lever illustrates that different force and distance combinations can achieve the same work output, emphasizing the principle of energy conservation. Understanding these concepts is vital for grasping the mechanics of motion and energy in everyday interactions.
aftershock
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
I know how to use the formulas and solve problems, but fundamentally what exactly is work?

Why is force times displacement a useful quantity? How do we know that in order to do work we need energy, and that energy must be conserved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Almost all of the everyday interactions are based on electromagnetic and gravitational forces. These all get weaken the further away you move from the source by the inverse square law. If you have one charged particle next to another of the same charge, they will repel. This force will depend on the distance. If you let the particle move by a distance away from the other one, the force on it will now be less and it will not go back to the first position unless you apply exactly the same force through the same distance on it as it felt when moving away.

Basically there is always a symmetry, the force it is applied to in one direction is always the same as the force you need to apply in the other direction to get it moving the other way. When you let the particle move further away, it feels less force and it will not feel as strong of a force from the other particle again unless you move it back by applying the same force that was applied to it. So by moving (along the gradient of the force) you let some of the force vanish, which will not come back, unless you force it.

So for example you want the wheels of the car to rotate and you burn some gasoline. It's probably an oversimplification, but you break up the gasoline with oxygen and then you have atoms or molecules very close to each other that repel each other by electromagnetic forces. These forces accelerate the molecules, hit the piston, push it because of inertia and the piston turns the wheel. The electromagnetic repulsion had to be overcome beforehand to put the molecule together and that is exactly how much force that came out of it.

This also means that when an object is moving at a right angle to the force gradient, the force it could feel moving away from it stays the same (i.e. the potential to do work moving along the force gradient is the same) and that is why we say that no work is done when one object is orbiting another.
 
aftershock said:
Why is force times displacement a useful quantity?

think about what you learned about levers in elementary/middle school. you could lift a 1 lb object up 1 foot by directly lifting it. or you can lift that same 1 lb object up that same 1 foot distance using a lever with a moment arm that is twice as long for your lifting hand as it is for the object. your lifting hand would need to apply 1/2 lb force, but you would have to lift the lever twice as far (2 feet).

but the net effect is the same, you got your 1 lb object lifted up by 1 foot. whether you had to exert 1 lb and 1 foot, or 1/2 pound and 2 feet, or 1/3 pound and 3 feet, the net accomplishment is the same.

How do we know that in order to do work we need energy, and that energy must be conserved?

well, in my opinion, that became sort of an axiom. perhaps someone can construct an argument, strictly from Newtonian mechanics for linear and rotational motion, why it must be true. maybe something like: if work, defined as force x displacement, is not a conserved quantity, then one can construct a situation where a mass lifted up 1 meter could be lifted up another meter without any "effort" coming in from the outside. it would mean things moving against the gravitational force without any other force acting on it.
 
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...
Back
Top