Why is Kinetic Energy a scalar quantity?

AI Thread Summary
Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity because it is defined as proportional to the square of velocity, which eliminates directionality. The inner product of vectors, such as squaring a velocity vector, results in a scalar. While momentum is a vector quantity that depends on direction, energy remains constant regardless of the direction of motion. This principle applies to both kinetic and potential energy, reinforcing that energy is inherently scalar. Understanding these concepts clarifies why kinetic energy does not possess directional attributes.
nineteen
Messages
68
Reaction score
12
Why is Kinetic energy a scalar quantity? I read in an article, it said, when the velocity is squared, it is not a vector quantity anymore. Can someone fill in the gaps for me? I can't quite get what that article said. And I would be pleased if you provide some other examples other than kinetic energy. Thanks so much in advance guys...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Energy in general is a scalar quantity. It is how it is defined, whether kinetic or potential.

nineteen said:
I read in an article
This is not an appropriate reference. In order to know what you read we need to know which article. Please provide a reference.

The inner product of any two vectors is a scalar quantity. So in particular, the inner product of a vector with itself, i.e., the square of the vector, is a scalar quantity.
 
  • Like
Likes nineteen
Try to think of it in these common sense terms.

Momentum, which is proportional to velocity, is a vector quantity. When two cars collide, it makes all the difference in the world if they were traveling in the same direction or in opposite directions.

Energy is proportional to the square of velocity. It takes the same energy (fuel burned) to accelerate a car from a stop to cruising speed, or to travel 100 km, regardless of whether the car is heading north, south, east or west.
 
  • Informative
Likes nineteen
Orodruin said:
Energy in general is a scalar quantity. It is how it is defined, whether kinetic or potential.This is not an appropriate reference. In order to know what you read we need to know which article. Please provide a reference.

The inner product of any two vectors is a scalar quantity. So in particular, the inner product of a vector with itself, i.e., the square of the vector, is a scalar quantity.

Thank you very much. I think I got what you taught. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=347&t=momentum-and-kinetic-energy This is the reference for that page I was talking about in the thread I started. This is kind of a Q and A article.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
anorlunda said:
Try to think of it in these common sense terms.

Momentum, which is proportional to velocity, is a vector quantity. When two cars collide, it makes all the difference in the world if they were traveling in the same direction or in opposite directions.

Energy is proportional to the square of velocity. It takes the same energy (fuel burned) to accelerate a car from a stop to cruising speed, or to travel 100 km, regardless of whether the car is heading north, south, east or west.

Explained so simply. Thank you very much friend.
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda and berkeman
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