Why Does Work Done on an Object Differ Between Inertial Frames?

In summary, the work done on an object depends on the frame of reference and the point of application of force. The kinetic energy of an object also depends on the frame of reference, as it is the result of the work done on an object.
  • #1
chingcx
21
0
I've 2 questions:

First, is there any particular reasons why accelerating an object from 1m/s to 2m/s requires less work than accelerating from 2m/s to 3m/s?

Second, when I see another inertial frame moving 1m/s w.r.t. me, in which there is an object moving 1m/s in the same direction w.r.t. that frame. When it is subjected some forces and accelerated to 2m/s in the frame (when it is moving 3m/s in my frame).
Now the work done on the object according to someone in that frame, is not the same as the work done I said. Why is there a contradiction?

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
chingcx said:
I've 2 questions:

First, is there any particular reasons why accelerating an object from 1m/s to 2m/s requires less work than accelerating from 2m/s to 3m/s?
It follows from the definition of work, try googling for the derivation of kinetic energy.
chingcx said:
Second, when I see another inertial frame moving 1m/s w.r.t. me, in which there is an object moving 1m/s in the same direction w.r.t. that frame. When it is subjected some forces and accelerated to 2m/s in the frame (when it is moving 3m/s in my frame).
Now the work done on the object according to someone in that frame, is not the same as the work done I said. Why is there a contradiction?
There isn't a contradiction, you are completely correct. The kinetic energy of an object is dependent on the frame of reference, as is the work done on an object.
 
  • #3
thats why its is all "relative"
 
  • #4
The frame of reference should be the point of application of force. For example, for a car on a road, the point of application of force is the contact patch with the pavement, and the frame of reference is the surface of the Earth at the point of contact. If the car were to be placed on a very long flatbed truck, then the frame of reference would be the surface of the flatbed truck. In the case of a propellor driven aircraft, the point of application of force is the air itself, which could be moving with respect to the surface of the Earth (headwind or tailwind).

Work done equals force times distance relative to the point of application (or the line integral of F ds from point A to point B).

In the case of a rocket in outerspace, there's nothing to apply a force to, so there's no change in momentum. Instead the rocket expells small bits of itself, spent fuel, at high velocity, and the thrust is the result of the mass of the spent fuel times it's net overall acceleration. Work is done on the spent fuel accelerated in one direction, and on the rocket accelerated in the opposite direction. The result of this work is a change in the total kinetic energy of spent fuel and rocket, and the sum of these two components of energy will be the same regardless of the frame of reference (within reason). The proper frame of reference is the rocket's engine, since that it the point of application of force.
 

FAQ: Why Does Work Done on an Object Differ Between Inertial Frames?

What is kinetic energy contradiction?

Kinetic energy contradiction refers to the conflict between the classical and modern definitions of kinetic energy. The classical definition states that kinetic energy is the energy of motion, while the modern definition includes other forms of energy, such as thermal and potential energy, into the calculation.

Why is there a contradiction in the definition of kinetic energy?

The contradiction arises because the classical definition of kinetic energy does not account for the fact that objects can possess energy in other forms, not just motion. This was not understood until the development of modern physics, which expanded the definition of kinetic energy.

How does the contradiction affect our understanding of kinetic energy?

The contradiction does not affect the mathematical calculations of kinetic energy, as both definitions are still valid and can be used in different contexts. However, it can lead to confusion and misunderstandings when discussing the concept of kinetic energy.

Can the contradiction be resolved?

No, the contradiction cannot be resolved as both definitions of kinetic energy are accurate and applicable in different situations. It is simply a matter of understanding and using the correct definition in the appropriate context.

How does the contradiction impact scientific research?

The contradiction does not have a significant impact on scientific research as it is well understood and accounted for in the scientific community. However, it is important to use the correct definition of kinetic energy in order to accurately describe and analyze physical phenomena.

Similar threads

Back
Top