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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of work done on an object in different inertial frames, particularly focusing on the differences in work required for varying speeds and the implications of frame of reference on kinetic energy and work calculations.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why accelerating an object from 1m/s to 2m/s requires less work than from 2m/s to 3m/s, suggesting it relates to the definition of work and kinetic energy.
  • Another participant asserts that there is no contradiction in the work done on an object as perceived from different frames of reference, emphasizing that kinetic energy and work are frame-dependent.
  • A third participant comments on the relativity of the situation, implying that the concept is inherently tied to relative motion.
  • A further contribution discusses the importance of the point of application of force and how it defines the frame of reference, using examples like cars and rockets to illustrate how work is calculated in different contexts.
  • This participant also notes that the total kinetic energy of the system remains consistent across frames, provided the proper frame of reference is identified.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between work, kinetic energy, and frame of reference. While some agree on the frame-dependence of these concepts, others raise questions about the implications and calculations involved, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about frames of reference and the definitions of work and kinetic energy. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps involved in these concepts.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K