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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Femme_physics
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of including the unit s-2 when describing force and energy, particularly in relation to motion and time. Participants explore the relationship between mass, force, and the concept of time in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why force cannot simply be expressed as mass multiplied by kilograms without including time as a unit.
  • Another participant emphasizes that force is fundamentally linked to motion, which inherently involves time, suggesting that a quantity of distance multiplied by mass lacks utility in describing motion.
  • It is proposed that force and energy are associated with motion, which necessitates a change in the system, and that seconds serve as a unit of change.
  • A participant queries whether applying the same mass times kilograms over different time intervals (5 seconds vs. 1 second) would result in a lesser force, indicating a need for clarification.
  • In response, it is explained that while the same force could be maintained by adjusting the change in velocity, a fixed change in velocity would indeed lead to a different force if the time interval changes.
  • Another participant notes that the concept of velocity (v) inherently includes time, as it is defined as the change in position over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of including time in the description of force and energy. While some agree on the importance of time in understanding motion, others raise questions about specific scenarios and interpretations, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the relationship between force, mass, and time, as well as the implications of calculus in understanding these concepts. There are unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of how time affects force.

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)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
12K