I How can we prove the kinetic energy equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the kinetic energy equation through the work-energy principle, stating that the work done equals the change in kinetic energy in a mechanical system. It outlines the mathematical derivation of work done, starting from the force applied to displacement and integrating over velocity. The conversation highlights that when velocity and its differential are aligned, the standard kinetic energy equation of 1/2mv^2 holds true. It also addresses scenarios where velocity components are in different directions, suggesting that the general kinetic energy equation can still be validated by analyzing each component separately. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of considering directional components in kinetic energy calculations.
murshiddreamengineer
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
does the kinetic energy equation always work? it has proved for only when acceleration and and velocity are in the same direction.
Proof of kinetic energy
work done equals a change in kinetic energy in a mechanical system.
δW = F.ds
W = ∫F.ds
W = m∫a.ds
W = m∫(dv/dt).ds
W = m∫v.dv

here if v and dv are in the same direction the change in kinetic energy will be the usual equation. what happens if both are in different directions how can we prove that the general equation for kinetic energy will be 1/2mv^2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It works individually on each component’s contribution. That is ##\int v_1 dv_1 = v_1^2/2## etc.
 
  • Like
Likes john1954, B0B, sophiecentaur and 1 other person
Thank you. I forgot to think that.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top