Kinetic energy, heat, and reference frame

In summary, the conversation discusses a thought experiment involving a train slowing down and the transfer of kinetic energy into heat. The confusion arises when considering the different reference frames and the amount of heat absorbed by the train and the rails. The conversation concludes with the understanding that all observers should be able to agree on the amount of heat, but further information is needed to determine how much heat each receives. Additionally, the conversation notes that the proof of kinetic energy depending on v squared is a result of considering all reference frames.
  • #1
FDGSa
7
0
I'm having some trouble reconciling the following facts: 1) that kinetic energy depends on v _squared_, 2) at the same time energy is conserved in all reference frames, and 3) reference frames transform linearly in v in classical mechanics (galileo transform). I've basically been able to boil down my confusion to the following thought experiment:

A "train" weighing 1 kg moving at 10 m/s slows down to 1m/s by braking. In the frame of the railroad tracks it loses 10^2 - 1^2 = 99 joules of kinetic energy which presumably is all transferred into the railroad tracks in the form of heat.

On the other hand, in the frame of a person walking 1m/s along the side of the train, it slowed down from 9m/s to 0 m/s, losing 9^2 - 0 = 81 joules of energy into heat in the tracks.

This can't both be right - all observers should be able to agree on how much thermal energy the track has!

The only thing I can think of so far is that perhaps the idea of the "thermal energy" of an object only applies in a frame where that object is stationary. However I do not find this explanation satisfactory since an object should conduct heat to it's surroundings at a rate proportional to the temperature difference regardless of whether it is stationary or moving.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
First, the train's mass should be 2kg. Check your calculation :wink:

Heat by friction = work by friction = work by friction on train Wt + work by friction on ground (or earth) Wg. In the first frame in which the ground is stationery, Wg=0. In the second one, Wg is not zero.

Denote m and M the masses of the train and the Earth respectively (note that m<<M). Take m=2kg for convenience. Let's assume that the Earth behaves like a mass point, so that we can ignore the rotation effect for simplicity; the final conclusion won't change. Consider the second frame. The train decelerates from 9m/s to 0m/s. The initial speed of the Earth is 1m/s.
_ Due to the momentum conservation, we have: m*9 + M*1 = m*0 + M*v.
_ Therefore, the final speed of the Earth is: v = 1 + 9m/M.
_ The work by friction done on the earth:
Wg = 0.5*M*(v^2-1^2) = 0.5*M*(18m/M + 81*(m/M)^2) = 0.5*M* 18m/M (approx. as m<<M) = 9m = 18 (J).
Now you see that Wg=18 J, Wt=81 J, the total heat = Wg+Wt = 99 J as expected.

We can also prove that since friction is internal force between train and earth, work rate (power) done by friction on the system train-earth only depends on the relative velocity between Earth and train, which means it is independent from the reference frame chosen.
 
  • #3
Thank you for the response. So then if the heat capacity of the rails is 1 K/J, the rails would in fact heat up by only 81 K, and the other 18 J would go into mechanically changing the momentum of the rails/earth.

I somehow had convinced myself that the work done to change the velocity of the Earth could be neglected by a scaling argument when it cannot.

In fact, it seems this is a circuitous proof that kinetic energy must depend on v squared (otherwise the math wouldn't work out such that everyone agrees on the change in temperature of the rails).
 
  • #4
FDGSa said:
Thank you for the response. So then if the heat capacity of the rails is 1 K/J, the rails would in fact heat up by only 81 K, and the other 18 J would go into mechanically changing the momentum of the rails/earth.

Uhm, no. Friction, which is the cause for momentum change, transfers kinetic energy into heat. The amount of heat in this case is 99 J, not 81 J.

If you say there is only 81 J that goes to heat in the rails, then in the 1st reference frame, there will be 99 J of heat going to the rails! You see the problem? :wink:

All 99 J of kinetic energy goes to heat in the train and the rail. In fact, we cannot conclude anything about how much heat each receives without further information (what kind of information? I don't know; I'm no expert). All we know is the total heat = 99 J.
 
  • #5


I can understand your confusion and I will try my best to clarify it for you. First, let's start by defining kinetic energy and heat. Kinetic energy is the energy possessed by an object due to its motion, and it is directly proportional to the square of its velocity. Heat, on the other hand, is a form of energy that is transferred from one object to another due to a temperature difference.

Now, let's consider your thought experiment. In the frame of the railroad tracks, the train slows down from 10 m/s to 1 m/s, losing 99 joules of kinetic energy. This energy is transferred to the tracks in the form of heat. In the frame of the person walking, the train slows down from 9 m/s to 0 m/s, losing 81 joules of kinetic energy. This energy is also transferred to the tracks in the form of heat.

The key point here is that the amount of kinetic energy lost by the train is the same in both frames, but the amount of heat transferred to the tracks is different. This is because heat is not just dependent on the kinetic energy of the train, but also on the relative motion between the train and the tracks. In the frame of the person walking, the tracks are moving towards the train at a speed of 1 m/s, which means that the heat transfer is more efficient and less energy is lost.

Now, let's address your concern about energy conservation and reference frames. Energy conservation holds true in all reference frames, which means that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant regardless of the frame of reference. In this thought experiment, the total amount of energy in the system (train + tracks) remains constant, but the distribution of that energy changes depending on the frame of reference.

Finally, the idea of thermal energy does not depend on the frame of reference. Thermal energy is a property of an object and is not affected by its motion. However, the rate at which heat is transferred to or from an object can vary depending on the frame of reference.

In conclusion, the apparent discrepancy in the amount of heat transferred to the tracks in different frames can be explained by considering the relative motion between the train and the tracks. Energy conservation still holds true in all frames, and thermal energy is not affected by an object's motion. I hope this helps to clarify your confusion.
 

FAQ: Kinetic energy, heat, and reference frame

What is the definition of kinetic energy?

Kinetic energy is the energy an object possesses due to its motion. It is calculated by the mass of the object multiplied by the square of its velocity, divided by two.

How is kinetic energy related to heat?

Kinetic energy and heat are closely related as heat is a form of energy that is transferred from one object to another due to a difference in temperature. When an object gains kinetic energy, it also gains heat energy as its particles move faster and collide with each other, increasing the overall temperature of the object.

What is the role of reference frame in kinetic energy?

A reference frame is a set of coordinates used to describe the motion of an object. It is important in understanding kinetic energy as the amount of kinetic energy an object possesses can vary depending on the reference frame used. For example, an object may have different velocities and thus different kinetic energies when observed from different reference frames.

What are some examples of kinetic energy in everyday life?

Some examples of kinetic energy in everyday life include a moving car, a bouncing ball, a swinging pendulum, and a spinning top. In all of these examples, the objects possess kinetic energy due to their motion.

How does kinetic energy relate to potential energy?

Kinetic energy and potential energy are both forms of energy that an object can possess. Kinetic energy is the energy an object has due to its motion, while potential energy is the energy an object possesses due to its position or state. They are related in that potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy and vice versa, such as in a roller coaster where potential energy at the top is converted into kinetic energy as the car moves down the track.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
449
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
667
Replies
12
Views
476
Replies
3
Views
800
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
979
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top