Why do we need the s-2 when describing force/energyetc?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Femme_physics
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the necessity of including time in the definition of force and energy, emphasizing that motion is inherently linked to time. It explains that force cannot simply be expressed as mass multiplied by distance without considering time, as this would lack utility in describing motion. The relationship between force, mass, and the change in velocity over time is highlighted, illustrating that force is fundamentally about changes occurring over time. The conversation also touches on how the application of force over different time intervals can yield the same force if the changes in velocity are adjusted accordingly. Ultimately, the inclusion of time is essential for accurately understanding and describing the dynamics of motion in physics.
Femme_physics
Gold Member
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1
For force, for instance, why can't we just use m x kg without the s-2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This question is very weird and my attempt of an answer will fail miserably. Force as it is defined and understood is something that is at the base of the concept of motion (the main subject of pretty much all physics). Motion is only meaningful if you have the notion of time. So there is no quantity that is equal to distance*mass because it is not really useful for describing anything about motion. If that quantity would be very useful than it would get some name.
 
Because force and energy are associated with motion (especially if we want to do anything interesting with them) which requires a change in the system. Seconds are a unit of change.

Of course, realize that no motion is a special case of motion in this context (we don't exclude v = 0 for instance, on a graph that we'd plot motion on). And in the case of energy, there is potential energy which describes a potential for motion.
 
Right, so there has to be a defined scale of time in order for it to work, I see. Does it mean if the same m x kg is applied at 5 seconds as opposed to 1 second, the force would be lesser.

Correct?
 
Dory said:
Right, so there has to be a defined scale of time in order for it to work, I see. Does it mean if the same m x kg is applied at 5 seconds as opposed to 1 second, the force would be lesser.

Correct?

Well, it's good thinking, but there's other things to consider. Consider the momentum formulation of force:

F = dp/dt = m*(dv/dt) = m*(dx^2/dt^2)

which requires calculus to understand in full. If you haven't seen any calculus yet, we'll look at

F = m*(dv/dt)

the mass (m) multiplied by the change in velocity (dv) over the change in time (dt). To treat dv/dt like division is incorrect in general, but I'm trying to demonstrate it algebraicly.

we can change this to

F*dt = dv

So if you replace dt with 1 sec or 5 sec, you could still have the same F if you also changed dv to make it match.

But for a fixed dv, yes your statement would be true.

The way to imagine this is a chunk of clay splatting against the wall. It has some velocity, v when it hits the wall. Over the next couple milliseconds (or whatever dt is), it slows down to 0. So it's change in velocity, dv = v-0 = v. F tells you the force that the clay and the wall imparted on each other throughout the event.
 
oh, and if you're wondering where the other s went, it's implicit in the v:

v = dx/dt (velocity is the change in position with respect to time)
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top