HN

Comments (58)

• Menu

  cubic_earth
  It's easiest to visualize in terms of conversion from potential energy.We know intuitively that a ball atop a 20ft ladder has twice the potential energy of a ball atop a 10ft ladder. And we also know when they fall, by the time they reach the ground and all the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy, the previously higher ball will have twice the kinetic energy too.But twice higher ball won't have even close to twice the speed at impact. So let's look at why not.The force of gravity is a constant force that causes constant acceleration in free fall regardless of speed. (Ignoring air resistance, inverse sq considerations, etc.)Suppose it takes 1 second for the ball on the 10ft ladder to hit the ground with kinetic energy of 10 and a speed of 100. Again, gravity as a constant acceleration force is speed increase per time... not speed per distance. In the ladder example, it took 1 full second for gravity to accelerate the object to speed 100.Now think about the 20ft ladder: the ball is dropped. How much kinetic energy and speed does the ball have after it has fallen 10 feet (but still has 10 left to go)? Well it has the same exact amount as the other ball did after falling 10 feet for a duration of 1 second: kinetic energy of 10 and speed of 100.Now the crux: thinking about when the final 10 feet of the fall look like. We know for sure the ball still has 10 ft of potential energy to covert into kinetic, and that that will happen as it falls. But what of the impact speed? Since the current velocity of the ball as it enters the last 10 feet is already 100, we know it will spend less time transiting this distance than it did the first half where it started at off at speed 0. Since gravity imparts speed in free fall as a function of time - consequently less speed will be imparted over the second 10 foot interval. That concept is enough to prove the relationship isn't linear.If you do the actual calculation or tests, you will see one ball needs to be dropped from 4x the hight of another to hit the ground at 2x the speed, but yet with still 4x the kinetic energy.
• Menu

  throw0101a
  Fun little anecdote:A blue care is travelling along at 70 units, and a red car (exact same make and model) is catching up to it going 100. When they're both right beside each other a bend in the road reveals an obstacle blocking both lanes, so both cars brake at the same intensity and deceleration.The blue care stops right before the obstacle. Since the red car was going at a faster speed, and braked at the same rate, it doesn't managae to stop: but what speed is it going when it hits the obstacle?The blue car, using ½mv², shed (~70²=) 4900 units of energy (we'll hand wave away the constants). So the red car, which had (100²=) 10000 units of kinetic energy to start, also shed 4900 units, which means it had 5100 units of energy when it collided, and so was going (√5100~) 71.* Numberphile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D7XYQExt0
• snarfy
  When you push something you don't change its velocity - you change its acceleration.
• aesthesia
  Michael Spivak's Physics for Mathematicians has a lot of arguments like the one in the top answer here, answering questions about why the math of classical mechanics is the way it is.
• Menu

  SyzygyRhythm
  Cheat answer: velocity is a vector, and can be negative, while KE is a scalar and has to be positive. Therefore you have to square v to get rid of the minus sign.Why not take the absolute value? Nature hates those, probably because the derivative is undefined at 0. So squaring it is.
• hyperhello
  I didn’t think this was that weird. When you double your speed you are also going to be going twice as far in the same time, not just twice as fast, and they both have the effect of work.
• c1ccccc1
  A stationary but hot object has kinetic energy due the the motion of the individual atoms that make it up, even though its overall momentum is 0. I.e.∑ⱼ mⱼ v⃗ⱼ = 0⃗where the mⱼ are the masses of the parts of the object and the v⃗ⱼ are the velocities of those parts.If the object initially has 0 velocity, its kinetic energy is:T = ½∑ⱼ mⱼ v⃗ⱼ²Now we give the object a kick (or just switch reference frames) to change its velocity by Δv⃗. The new kinetic energy is:T' = ½∑ⱼ mⱼ (v⃗ⱼ + Δv⃗)²T' = ½∑ⱼ mⱼ (v⃗ⱼ² + 2v⃗ⱼ⋅Δv⃗ + Δv⃗²)T' = ½(∑ⱼ mⱼ v⃗ⱼ²) + Δv⃗⋅(∑ⱼ mⱼ v⃗ⱼ) + ½Δv⃗²(∑ⱼ mⱼ)If M is the total mass of the object, then we can substitute this into the sum in the last term. And we already saw that the sum in the middle term was 0. So:T' = ½(∑ⱼ mⱼ v⃗ⱼ²) + Δv⃗⋅0⃗ + ½Δv⃗² MT' = ½∑ⱼ mⱼ v⃗ⱼ² + ½MΔv⃗²So in terms of the original kinetic energy T, which was purely thermal energy, we get:T' = T + ½MΔv⃗²In other words, because of the quadratic kinetic energy formula, we can see that the total kinetic energy T' of a hot object is just its thermal kinetic energy T plus the usual mechanical kinetic energy ½MΔv⃗².
• jacknews
  The first example only tells me that the energy is dependent on your frame of reference, since the train collision appears to have more energy than the head-on collision, simply due to the moving viewpoint, whereas they must be the same.
• Menu

  drivebyhooting
  I don’t find the answer convincing. It assumes one can measure heat at a distance and it is a conserved quantity between reference frames.Energy is actually not a conserved quantity in Galilean relativity.
• Menu

  Agingcoder
  Physics is an endless source of frustration to me. It feels like a mix of random tricks, most of which I don’t understand.I find math and compsci reasonably understandable, can read research papers in both fields ( and have published papers) etc. There’s something specific about physics I don’t get but I’ve never been able to figure out what. The main symptom is that most cause -> consequence in such demonstrations , which are seemingly obvious to everyone, make no sense to me.Am I the only one ? Are there good resources to learn it?
• casey2
  Mikes' answer is the most intuitive, but he rephrases the question in a possibly non intuitive way.Odd that nobody mentioned power, which scales linearly with speed. Of course if you add linear increasing amounts of power to the system the energy will increase quadratically.Power scaling linearly is more intuitive because doubling your speed requires twice the power to maintain the same force, why does it require twice the power? because you have half the time to power it.
• AngryData
  This is also why splitting wood with a maul is way more work than using an axe. You can swing an axe at incredibly speeds which gives incredibly transfers of energy, but a maul is going to always have "meh" levels of speed because it is too much mass to accelerate over such a short distance as a swing. Also why you don't see framers using 3 lb hammers. You can put in more effort and get your lighter hammer swing to twice the normal speed, no way in hell you are doubling the speed of a 3 lb hammer though.
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  firebot
  Because it's not momentum. ;pF=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration)W=Fd (work equals force multiplied by distance)V^2=2ad (velocity squared equals two times acceleration times distance)So W = Fd = ma(v^2/2a)Finally: W=1/2mv^2 (work equals 1/2 mass times velocity squared)So this explains why car crashes can be so dramatic, as a doubling of speed results in 4x the kinetic energy.
• Menu

  11101010010001
  read Ron Maimon.
• lngnmn2
  [dead]