Fallacy in Work-Energy theorem?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of fallacy in the work-energy theorem when considering a block moving on a floor with friction. It is argued that the change in kinetic energy is not always equal to the work done by friction, as the energy of the Earth must also be taken into account. This is demonstrated through the example of a man moving with a constant velocity in a reference frame. Ultimately, it is concluded that the first term in the expression for the change in energy of the Earth is not negligible if the Earth's velocity is not zero.
  • #1
rushil
40
0
Fallacy in Work-Energy theorem??

Consider a block moving on a floor which has some friction. It is given an initial velocity of 10 m/s and it comes to rest after some time due to friction. Since friction slows the block down, heat is generated, some of which goes into raising the temperature of the block.

Now consider the same above situation in a reference frame of a man moving with a constant velocity of 5 m/s. In this reference frame, the change in kinetic energy is zero... So how do we get from energy conservation that the temperature of the block rises?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No offense intended, lad; it might be a language gap. Can you possibly rephrase your question in a way that makes sense? :confused:
 
  • #3
Rather tha rephrasing the question - can you please state what exactly you did not understand! Thanks!
 
  • #4
Not necessary now. I read this thread before your other one. Once I saw it, I knew what you meant.
What threw me off is that you referenced velocities for both the block and the man, but gave only vector figures. There was therefore no way to know in which direction they were moving in relation to each other. That sort of made the whole question ambiguous to me. Again, I meant no offense by my response. :smile:
 
  • #5
Forget velocities - the block and person are all traveling in the same line , initially , the block and person have Earth frame velocities in the same direction ... hope its OK now!
 
  • #6
It's cool, man. As I said, your second post, and Mr. Monkey's excellent response, cleared up what I missed the first time around. :smile:
 
  • #7
rushil said:
Consider a block moving on a floor which has some friction. It is given an initial velocity of 10 m/s and it comes to rest after some time due to friction. Since friction slows the block down, heat is generated, some of which goes into raising the temperature of the block.
Now consider the same above situation in a reference frame of a man moving with a constant velocity of 5 m/s. In this reference frame, the change in kinetic energy is zero... So how do we get from energy conservation that the temperature of the block rises?

You have to include the energy of the Earth.

The change in energy of the Earth is .5*me*ve^2 - .5*me*(ve-p/me)^2, where ve is the velocity of the Earth, me is the math of the Earth, p is the amount of momentum given to the block by the Earth. Thus the Earth's velocity changes by p/me.

You can see that there is a term proportional to p*ve and another term proportioanl to .5*p^2/me in the expression for the change in energy of the Earth.

Because me is very large, the second term is always negligible, but the first term is not negligible if ve is not zero.
 

FAQ: Fallacy in Work-Energy theorem?

What is the Work-Energy theorem?

The Work-Energy theorem is a principle in physics that states that the work done on an object is equal to the change in its kinetic energy. This means that the net force applied to an object over a certain distance will result in a change in the object's velocity.

What is a fallacy in the Work-Energy theorem?

A fallacy in the Work-Energy theorem refers to a mistake or error in reasoning that leads to an incorrect conclusion about the relationship between work and energy. This can occur when certain assumptions are made or when the conditions of the theorem are not met.

What are some common examples of fallacies in the Work-Energy theorem?

One example of a fallacy in the Work-Energy theorem is assuming that all forces acting on an object are conservative, when in reality there may be non-conservative forces at work. Another example is neglecting to take into account the energy lost due to friction or other dissipative forces.

How can fallacies in the Work-Energy theorem be avoided?

To avoid fallacies in the Work-Energy theorem, it is important to carefully consider all the forces acting on an object and to accurately calculate the work done by each force. It is also important to take into account any non-conservative forces and to consider the effects of energy loss due to friction or other dissipative forces.

Why is it important to understand fallacies in the Work-Energy theorem?

Understanding fallacies in the Work-Energy theorem is important because it helps to ensure that calculations and conclusions based on this principle are accurate and reliable. It also helps to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between work and energy, which is fundamental in many areas of physics and engineering.

Back
Top