Unlimited Work Done in Free Space: The Impact of Force on Small Masses

AI Thread Summary
Applying force to a small mass in open space can theoretically lead to infinite displacement, but this does not result in infinite work done. Work is defined as the product of force and the distance over which it is applied, and once the force ceases, no additional work is done. The energy involved remains finite, specifically the kinetic energy of the mass. Thus, while displacement can be infinite, the work done is limited by the duration and magnitude of the force applied. Understanding these principles clarifies the relationship between force, displacement, and work in physics.
Tony Stark
Messages
51
Reaction score
1
If we apply force on a small mass in open space, then it will cover infinite displacement. Then would the mass have infinite work done?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The work only takes into account the distance over which the force is applied. Once the force stops acting, the work doesn't increase.
 
  • Like
Likes Tony Stark
Tony Stark said:
If we apply force on a small mass in open space, then it will cover infinite displacement. Then would the mass have infinite work done?

"Work" is energy. In your example, the energy is finite: namely the kinetic energy of the mass.
 
axmls said:
The work only takes into account the distance over which the force is applied. Once the force stops acting, the work doesn't increase.
Thanks a lot. It solved my problem clearly:smile::smile:
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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