Why isn't kinetic energy considered a fundamental force like the other four?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Kinetic energy is not classified as a fundamental force because it is a scalar quantity representing the energy of motion, not a vector force that causes acceleration. The four fundamental forces in physics are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Kinetic energy arises from the motion of particles and is governed by conservation laws, while forces are interactions that cause changes in motion. The distinction between energy and force is critical in understanding physical interactions, particularly in classical mechanics and quantum physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics concepts, including force and energy
  • Familiarity with the four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force
  • Basic knowledge of conservation laws in physics
  • Awareness of the differences between scalar and vector quantities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and implications of the four fundamental forces in physics
  • Learn about conservation laws, particularly kinetic and potential energy
  • Explore the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration in classical mechanics
  • Investigate the role of energy in particle collisions and interactions
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the fundamental principles of energy and force in the context of classical and quantum physics.

  • #31
cmb said:
I don't see how the scenario you describe justifies/evidences your statement.

What I would like to show you is that the difference between the two is the entropy in those two scenarios. It is the difference of entropy that is fundamental, to which both energy and force are 'emergent' and which are the concepts we use to 'codify' and comprehend the change of entropy in a dynamic system (that would otherwise be too difficult to manage mathematically, if we were only to talk about entropy).

Put it another way - without any change of entropy (actual, or incipient) there is no change of energy or motion, thus there is no force.

Huh? I'm pretty sure my point doesn't need entropy to explain what force is. Force describes the interaction of particles, mediated through the exchange of virtual bosons. Perhaps you could clarify?

Also, to what scenario-verified statement are you referring? The only statements I made described only the scenario I presented. Are we in some sort of syntactical recursive loop here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I don't understand what you are saying, so I'll leave it there...
 
  • #33
cmb said:
I don't understand what you are saying, so I'll leave it there...

Okay, I think I see what you were trying to say. "The statement" you were referring to was "the difference between the first and second universe is..."? Is this correct?

I was a bit inaccurate. Let me change it to "The difference between the original particle's behavior between the first and second universe is... "
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K