Why Does Work Done on an Object Differ Between Inertial Frames?

AI Thread Summary
Accelerating an object from 1m/s to 2m/s requires less work than from 2m/s to 3m/s due to the kinetic energy definition, which shows that work is frame-dependent. The work done on an object varies between inertial frames because kinetic energy and work are relative to the frame of reference. The point of application of force determines the appropriate frame, such as the Earth's surface for a car or the rocket's engine for a spacecraft. In scenarios like a rocket in space, work is done on expelled fuel and the rocket itself, resulting in a change in kinetic energy that remains consistent across frames. Understanding these principles clarifies the apparent contradictions in work done from different perspectives.
chingcx
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I've 2 questions:

First, is there any particular reasons why accelerating an object from 1m/s to 2m/s requires less work than accelerating from 2m/s to 3m/s?

Second, when I see another inertial frame moving 1m/s w.r.t. me, in which there is an object moving 1m/s in the same direction w.r.t. that frame. When it is subjected some forces and accelerated to 2m/s in the frame (when it is moving 3m/s in my frame).
Now the work done on the object according to someone in that frame, is not the same as the work done I said. Why is there a contradiction?

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
chingcx said:
I've 2 questions:

First, is there any particular reasons why accelerating an object from 1m/s to 2m/s requires less work than accelerating from 2m/s to 3m/s?
It follows from the definition of work, try googling for the derivation of kinetic energy.
chingcx said:
Second, when I see another inertial frame moving 1m/s w.r.t. me, in which there is an object moving 1m/s in the same direction w.r.t. that frame. When it is subjected some forces and accelerated to 2m/s in the frame (when it is moving 3m/s in my frame).
Now the work done on the object according to someone in that frame, is not the same as the work done I said. Why is there a contradiction?
There isn't a contradiction, you are completely correct. The kinetic energy of an object is dependent on the frame of reference, as is the work done on an object.
 
thats why its is all "relative"
 
The frame of reference should be the point of application of force. For example, for a car on a road, the point of application of force is the contact patch with the pavement, and the frame of reference is the surface of the Earth at the point of contact. If the car were to be placed on a very long flatbed truck, then the frame of reference would be the surface of the flatbed truck. In the case of a propellor driven aircraft, the point of application of force is the air itself, which could be moving with respect to the surface of the Earth (headwind or tailwind).

Work done equals force times distance relative to the point of application (or the line integral of F ds from point A to point B).

In the case of a rocket in outerspace, there's nothing to apply a force to, so there's no change in momentum. Instead the rocket expells small bits of itself, spent fuel, at high velocity, and the thrust is the result of the mass of the spent fuel times it's net overall acceleration. Work is done on the spent fuel accelerated in one direction, and on the rocket accelerated in the opposite direction. The result of this work is a change in the total kinetic energy of spent fuel and rocket, and the sum of these two components of energy will be the same regardless of the frame of reference (within reason). The proper frame of reference is the rocket's engine, since that it the point of application of force.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top