Total energy of a system, what is it exactly?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I often see that the total energy of a system is the sum of potential energy+ kinetic energy. Is it always like that? Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy? I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not... But maybe at the end, it's just the sum of work of each force?
newtonian-mechanics forces energy work potential-energy
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I often see that the total energy of a system is the sum of potential energy+ kinetic energy. Is it always like that? Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy? I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not... But maybe at the end, it's just the sum of work of each force?
newtonian-mechanics forces energy work potential-energy
New contributor
Body has energy of movement, that is kinetic energy. Potential energy is defined as a work of certain (so-called conservative) forces to a body. So total energy in mechanics is simply the potential energy plus kinetic energy.
– Pygmalion
2 hours ago
@Pygmalion : why don't w consider the work of the non conservative force in the total energy ?
– user623855
2 hours ago
Because it turns into other non-mechanical forms of energy (internal energy, heat...)
– Pygmalion
1 hour ago
@Pygmalion Please post answers as answers and not as comments
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I often see that the total energy of a system is the sum of potential energy+ kinetic energy. Is it always like that? Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy? I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not... But maybe at the end, it's just the sum of work of each force?
newtonian-mechanics forces energy work potential-energy
New contributor
I often see that the total energy of a system is the sum of potential energy+ kinetic energy. Is it always like that? Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy? I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not... But maybe at the end, it's just the sum of work of each force?
newtonian-mechanics forces energy work potential-energy
newtonian-mechanics forces energy work potential-energy
New contributor
New contributor
edited 1 hour ago
Qmechanic♦
100k121821134
100k121821134
New contributor
asked 2 hours ago
user623855
323
323
New contributor
New contributor
Body has energy of movement, that is kinetic energy. Potential energy is defined as a work of certain (so-called conservative) forces to a body. So total energy in mechanics is simply the potential energy plus kinetic energy.
– Pygmalion
2 hours ago
@Pygmalion : why don't w consider the work of the non conservative force in the total energy ?
– user623855
2 hours ago
Because it turns into other non-mechanical forms of energy (internal energy, heat...)
– Pygmalion
1 hour ago
@Pygmalion Please post answers as answers and not as comments
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Body has energy of movement, that is kinetic energy. Potential energy is defined as a work of certain (so-called conservative) forces to a body. So total energy in mechanics is simply the potential energy plus kinetic energy.
– Pygmalion
2 hours ago
@Pygmalion : why don't w consider the work of the non conservative force in the total energy ?
– user623855
2 hours ago
Because it turns into other non-mechanical forms of energy (internal energy, heat...)
– Pygmalion
1 hour ago
@Pygmalion Please post answers as answers and not as comments
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
Body has energy of movement, that is kinetic energy. Potential energy is defined as a work of certain (so-called conservative) forces to a body. So total energy in mechanics is simply the potential energy plus kinetic energy.
– Pygmalion
2 hours ago
Body has energy of movement, that is kinetic energy. Potential energy is defined as a work of certain (so-called conservative) forces to a body. So total energy in mechanics is simply the potential energy plus kinetic energy.
– Pygmalion
2 hours ago
@Pygmalion : why don't w consider the work of the non conservative force in the total energy ?
– user623855
2 hours ago
@Pygmalion : why don't w consider the work of the non conservative force in the total energy ?
– user623855
2 hours ago
Because it turns into other non-mechanical forms of energy (internal energy, heat...)
– Pygmalion
1 hour ago
Because it turns into other non-mechanical forms of energy (internal energy, heat...)
– Pygmalion
1 hour ago
@Pygmalion Please post answers as answers and not as comments
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@Pygmalion Please post answers as answers and not as comments
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
For a given system the total energy is described as the energy contained in the movement of the components of the system and a potential enery given by the conservative forces that affect the system. Other forces normally make the system either lose or gain energy so those are not accounted for in the system directly (refer to "heat" in thermodynamics) and if you consider relativistic effects you should also account for rest-mass energy with Einstein's equation.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy ?
You can not do this because the work done by a force is not a state function. What this means is that we cannot define a unique "work done by all forces" of a system based on the state of the system. You would have to know how the forces acted on the system in the past, and even then you would have to define a starting time and initial energy of the system to using this method. In other words, the total energy would depend on when we decide to start adding up all of the work that has been done on the system.
The reason we define the total energy as $E=K+U$ is because of how we define these energies and forces to make life easier. I will consider a single particle, but this can be generalized to more complicated systems. We know that the net work on a particle (over some time) determines its change in kinetic energy:
$$W_{net}=Delta K$$
But we can also express the net work as work done by a sum of work done by conservative and non-conservative forces:
$$W_{net}=W_c+W_{nc}$$
But by definition of conservative forces and their associated potential energies, we know that
$$W_c=-Delta U$$
Therefore, if we define our total energy as $E=K+U$, then we see that
$$Delta E=Delta K+Delta U=W_{nc}$$
So we find that only non-conservative forces can change what we have defined as total energy. Furthermore, if there are no non-conservative forces acting on the particle, we see that total energy is conserved.
Going back to my first point, we see that our definition $E=K+U$ only depends on the state of the system (typically just the position and velocities of particles). It doesn't depend on the history of the system. Notice how work only determines changes in energy, never actual energy values.
I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not
Conservative forces have a potential energy associated with them. Conservative forces are forces that have zero curl, or in other words are forces where the work done by that force does not depend on the path through space the system takes. When this is the case, we can write out a potential energy such that
$$mathbf F=-nabla U$$
Or in one dimension
$$F=-frac{text d U}{text d x}$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This question touches on a deep subject with many facets. The other answers already posted represent some of those facets.
I'll briefly mention one more: Noether's theorem. This theorem says that in a model that respects the action principle and that is symmetric under time-shifts, there is automatically a conserved quantity. We call it "energy." In Newtonian mechanics, this energy ends up being a sum of kinetic terms and potential terms. Other models might not have such a natural separation into "kinetic" and "potential" parts, even though they still have a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem.
In electrodynamics, the force due to a magnetic field on a moving charged particle is proportional to the particle's speed but perpendicular to its velocity. This force is not the gradient of any potential energy in the more-familiar Newtonian sense, but electrodynamics still has a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem. Whether or not we try to separate this into "kinetic" and "potential" terms is a matter of taste and convenience. The total energy is what matters in this context, because the total energy is what's conserved.
This definition based on Noether's theorem is just one of several related-but-different meanings of the word "energy" in physics. It's a deep subject, and the fact that the word is overloaded can make navigating the subject even more challenging.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It is in fact the work done by all the forces plus some constants. These constants are just formalisms which are of no use in dynamical problems. In fact you don't even need the potential formalisms as long as you make sure to include the work done by those forces separately. In that case the work done on the system would correspond just to the change in kinetic energy of the system. The potential concept is there so that you don't need to integrate the force with x again and again, you can just use a formula. As long as you don't want to lose the sense of causality, I recommend not to use the potential; you can still get the same results by using only kinetic energy but including work by all forces.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user623855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448533%2ftotal-energy-of-a-system-what-is-it-exactly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
For a given system the total energy is described as the energy contained in the movement of the components of the system and a potential enery given by the conservative forces that affect the system. Other forces normally make the system either lose or gain energy so those are not accounted for in the system directly (refer to "heat" in thermodynamics) and if you consider relativistic effects you should also account for rest-mass energy with Einstein's equation.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
For a given system the total energy is described as the energy contained in the movement of the components of the system and a potential enery given by the conservative forces that affect the system. Other forces normally make the system either lose or gain energy so those are not accounted for in the system directly (refer to "heat" in thermodynamics) and if you consider relativistic effects you should also account for rest-mass energy with Einstein's equation.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
For a given system the total energy is described as the energy contained in the movement of the components of the system and a potential enery given by the conservative forces that affect the system. Other forces normally make the system either lose or gain energy so those are not accounted for in the system directly (refer to "heat" in thermodynamics) and if you consider relativistic effects you should also account for rest-mass energy with Einstein's equation.
For a given system the total energy is described as the energy contained in the movement of the components of the system and a potential enery given by the conservative forces that affect the system. Other forces normally make the system either lose or gain energy so those are not accounted for in the system directly (refer to "heat" in thermodynamics) and if you consider relativistic effects you should also account for rest-mass energy with Einstein's equation.
answered 1 hour ago
Kirtpole
1268
1268
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy ?
You can not do this because the work done by a force is not a state function. What this means is that we cannot define a unique "work done by all forces" of a system based on the state of the system. You would have to know how the forces acted on the system in the past, and even then you would have to define a starting time and initial energy of the system to using this method. In other words, the total energy would depend on when we decide to start adding up all of the work that has been done on the system.
The reason we define the total energy as $E=K+U$ is because of how we define these energies and forces to make life easier. I will consider a single particle, but this can be generalized to more complicated systems. We know that the net work on a particle (over some time) determines its change in kinetic energy:
$$W_{net}=Delta K$$
But we can also express the net work as work done by a sum of work done by conservative and non-conservative forces:
$$W_{net}=W_c+W_{nc}$$
But by definition of conservative forces and their associated potential energies, we know that
$$W_c=-Delta U$$
Therefore, if we define our total energy as $E=K+U$, then we see that
$$Delta E=Delta K+Delta U=W_{nc}$$
So we find that only non-conservative forces can change what we have defined as total energy. Furthermore, if there are no non-conservative forces acting on the particle, we see that total energy is conserved.
Going back to my first point, we see that our definition $E=K+U$ only depends on the state of the system (typically just the position and velocities of particles). It doesn't depend on the history of the system. Notice how work only determines changes in energy, never actual energy values.
I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not
Conservative forces have a potential energy associated with them. Conservative forces are forces that have zero curl, or in other words are forces where the work done by that force does not depend on the path through space the system takes. When this is the case, we can write out a potential energy such that
$$mathbf F=-nabla U$$
Or in one dimension
$$F=-frac{text d U}{text d x}$$
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy ?
You can not do this because the work done by a force is not a state function. What this means is that we cannot define a unique "work done by all forces" of a system based on the state of the system. You would have to know how the forces acted on the system in the past, and even then you would have to define a starting time and initial energy of the system to using this method. In other words, the total energy would depend on when we decide to start adding up all of the work that has been done on the system.
The reason we define the total energy as $E=K+U$ is because of how we define these energies and forces to make life easier. I will consider a single particle, but this can be generalized to more complicated systems. We know that the net work on a particle (over some time) determines its change in kinetic energy:
$$W_{net}=Delta K$$
But we can also express the net work as work done by a sum of work done by conservative and non-conservative forces:
$$W_{net}=W_c+W_{nc}$$
But by definition of conservative forces and their associated potential energies, we know that
$$W_c=-Delta U$$
Therefore, if we define our total energy as $E=K+U$, then we see that
$$Delta E=Delta K+Delta U=W_{nc}$$
So we find that only non-conservative forces can change what we have defined as total energy. Furthermore, if there are no non-conservative forces acting on the particle, we see that total energy is conserved.
Going back to my first point, we see that our definition $E=K+U$ only depends on the state of the system (typically just the position and velocities of particles). It doesn't depend on the history of the system. Notice how work only determines changes in energy, never actual energy values.
I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not
Conservative forces have a potential energy associated with them. Conservative forces are forces that have zero curl, or in other words are forces where the work done by that force does not depend on the path through space the system takes. When this is the case, we can write out a potential energy such that
$$mathbf F=-nabla U$$
Or in one dimension
$$F=-frac{text d U}{text d x}$$
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy ?
You can not do this because the work done by a force is not a state function. What this means is that we cannot define a unique "work done by all forces" of a system based on the state of the system. You would have to know how the forces acted on the system in the past, and even then you would have to define a starting time and initial energy of the system to using this method. In other words, the total energy would depend on when we decide to start adding up all of the work that has been done on the system.
The reason we define the total energy as $E=K+U$ is because of how we define these energies and forces to make life easier. I will consider a single particle, but this can be generalized to more complicated systems. We know that the net work on a particle (over some time) determines its change in kinetic energy:
$$W_{net}=Delta K$$
But we can also express the net work as work done by a sum of work done by conservative and non-conservative forces:
$$W_{net}=W_c+W_{nc}$$
But by definition of conservative forces and their associated potential energies, we know that
$$W_c=-Delta U$$
Therefore, if we define our total energy as $E=K+U$, then we see that
$$Delta E=Delta K+Delta U=W_{nc}$$
So we find that only non-conservative forces can change what we have defined as total energy. Furthermore, if there are no non-conservative forces acting on the particle, we see that total energy is conserved.
Going back to my first point, we see that our definition $E=K+U$ only depends on the state of the system (typically just the position and velocities of particles). It doesn't depend on the history of the system. Notice how work only determines changes in energy, never actual energy values.
I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not
Conservative forces have a potential energy associated with them. Conservative forces are forces that have zero curl, or in other words are forces where the work done by that force does not depend on the path through space the system takes. When this is the case, we can write out a potential energy such that
$$mathbf F=-nabla U$$
Or in one dimension
$$F=-frac{text d U}{text d x}$$
Could I say that the total energy of a system is the sum of the work of all force + kinetic energy ?
You can not do this because the work done by a force is not a state function. What this means is that we cannot define a unique "work done by all forces" of a system based on the state of the system. You would have to know how the forces acted on the system in the past, and even then you would have to define a starting time and initial energy of the system to using this method. In other words, the total energy would depend on when we decide to start adding up all of the work that has been done on the system.
The reason we define the total energy as $E=K+U$ is because of how we define these energies and forces to make life easier. I will consider a single particle, but this can be generalized to more complicated systems. We know that the net work on a particle (over some time) determines its change in kinetic energy:
$$W_{net}=Delta K$$
But we can also express the net work as work done by a sum of work done by conservative and non-conservative forces:
$$W_{net}=W_c+W_{nc}$$
But by definition of conservative forces and their associated potential energies, we know that
$$W_c=-Delta U$$
Therefore, if we define our total energy as $E=K+U$, then we see that
$$Delta E=Delta K+Delta U=W_{nc}$$
So we find that only non-conservative forces can change what we have defined as total energy. Furthermore, if there are no non-conservative forces acting on the particle, we see that total energy is conserved.
Going back to my first point, we see that our definition $E=K+U$ only depends on the state of the system (typically just the position and velocities of particles). It doesn't depend on the history of the system. Notice how work only determines changes in energy, never actual energy values.
I'm always confuse on which force gives a potential or not
Conservative forces have a potential energy associated with them. Conservative forces are forces that have zero curl, or in other words are forces where the work done by that force does not depend on the path through space the system takes. When this is the case, we can write out a potential energy such that
$$mathbf F=-nabla U$$
Or in one dimension
$$F=-frac{text d U}{text d x}$$
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Aaron Stevens
8,01431235
8,01431235
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This question touches on a deep subject with many facets. The other answers already posted represent some of those facets.
I'll briefly mention one more: Noether's theorem. This theorem says that in a model that respects the action principle and that is symmetric under time-shifts, there is automatically a conserved quantity. We call it "energy." In Newtonian mechanics, this energy ends up being a sum of kinetic terms and potential terms. Other models might not have such a natural separation into "kinetic" and "potential" parts, even though they still have a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem.
In electrodynamics, the force due to a magnetic field on a moving charged particle is proportional to the particle's speed but perpendicular to its velocity. This force is not the gradient of any potential energy in the more-familiar Newtonian sense, but electrodynamics still has a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem. Whether or not we try to separate this into "kinetic" and "potential" terms is a matter of taste and convenience. The total energy is what matters in this context, because the total energy is what's conserved.
This definition based on Noether's theorem is just one of several related-but-different meanings of the word "energy" in physics. It's a deep subject, and the fact that the word is overloaded can make navigating the subject even more challenging.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
This question touches on a deep subject with many facets. The other answers already posted represent some of those facets.
I'll briefly mention one more: Noether's theorem. This theorem says that in a model that respects the action principle and that is symmetric under time-shifts, there is automatically a conserved quantity. We call it "energy." In Newtonian mechanics, this energy ends up being a sum of kinetic terms and potential terms. Other models might not have such a natural separation into "kinetic" and "potential" parts, even though they still have a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem.
In electrodynamics, the force due to a magnetic field on a moving charged particle is proportional to the particle's speed but perpendicular to its velocity. This force is not the gradient of any potential energy in the more-familiar Newtonian sense, but electrodynamics still has a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem. Whether or not we try to separate this into "kinetic" and "potential" terms is a matter of taste and convenience. The total energy is what matters in this context, because the total energy is what's conserved.
This definition based on Noether's theorem is just one of several related-but-different meanings of the word "energy" in physics. It's a deep subject, and the fact that the word is overloaded can make navigating the subject even more challenging.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This question touches on a deep subject with many facets. The other answers already posted represent some of those facets.
I'll briefly mention one more: Noether's theorem. This theorem says that in a model that respects the action principle and that is symmetric under time-shifts, there is automatically a conserved quantity. We call it "energy." In Newtonian mechanics, this energy ends up being a sum of kinetic terms and potential terms. Other models might not have such a natural separation into "kinetic" and "potential" parts, even though they still have a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem.
In electrodynamics, the force due to a magnetic field on a moving charged particle is proportional to the particle's speed but perpendicular to its velocity. This force is not the gradient of any potential energy in the more-familiar Newtonian sense, but electrodynamics still has a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem. Whether or not we try to separate this into "kinetic" and "potential" terms is a matter of taste and convenience. The total energy is what matters in this context, because the total energy is what's conserved.
This definition based on Noether's theorem is just one of several related-but-different meanings of the word "energy" in physics. It's a deep subject, and the fact that the word is overloaded can make navigating the subject even more challenging.
This question touches on a deep subject with many facets. The other answers already posted represent some of those facets.
I'll briefly mention one more: Noether's theorem. This theorem says that in a model that respects the action principle and that is symmetric under time-shifts, there is automatically a conserved quantity. We call it "energy." In Newtonian mechanics, this energy ends up being a sum of kinetic terms and potential terms. Other models might not have such a natural separation into "kinetic" and "potential" parts, even though they still have a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem.
In electrodynamics, the force due to a magnetic field on a moving charged particle is proportional to the particle's speed but perpendicular to its velocity. This force is not the gradient of any potential energy in the more-familiar Newtonian sense, but electrodynamics still has a conserved total energy defined via Noether's theorem. Whether or not we try to separate this into "kinetic" and "potential" terms is a matter of taste and convenience. The total energy is what matters in this context, because the total energy is what's conserved.
This definition based on Noether's theorem is just one of several related-but-different meanings of the word "energy" in physics. It's a deep subject, and the fact that the word is overloaded can make navigating the subject even more challenging.
answered 51 mins ago
Dan Yand
5,2191524
5,2191524
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It is in fact the work done by all the forces plus some constants. These constants are just formalisms which are of no use in dynamical problems. In fact you don't even need the potential formalisms as long as you make sure to include the work done by those forces separately. In that case the work done on the system would correspond just to the change in kinetic energy of the system. The potential concept is there so that you don't need to integrate the force with x again and again, you can just use a formula. As long as you don't want to lose the sense of causality, I recommend not to use the potential; you can still get the same results by using only kinetic energy but including work by all forces.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It is in fact the work done by all the forces plus some constants. These constants are just formalisms which are of no use in dynamical problems. In fact you don't even need the potential formalisms as long as you make sure to include the work done by those forces separately. In that case the work done on the system would correspond just to the change in kinetic energy of the system. The potential concept is there so that you don't need to integrate the force with x again and again, you can just use a formula. As long as you don't want to lose the sense of causality, I recommend not to use the potential; you can still get the same results by using only kinetic energy but including work by all forces.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It is in fact the work done by all the forces plus some constants. These constants are just formalisms which are of no use in dynamical problems. In fact you don't even need the potential formalisms as long as you make sure to include the work done by those forces separately. In that case the work done on the system would correspond just to the change in kinetic energy of the system. The potential concept is there so that you don't need to integrate the force with x again and again, you can just use a formula. As long as you don't want to lose the sense of causality, I recommend not to use the potential; you can still get the same results by using only kinetic energy but including work by all forces.
It is in fact the work done by all the forces plus some constants. These constants are just formalisms which are of no use in dynamical problems. In fact you don't even need the potential formalisms as long as you make sure to include the work done by those forces separately. In that case the work done on the system would correspond just to the change in kinetic energy of the system. The potential concept is there so that you don't need to integrate the force with x again and again, you can just use a formula. As long as you don't want to lose the sense of causality, I recommend not to use the potential; you can still get the same results by using only kinetic energy but including work by all forces.
answered 16 mins ago
Yash Agarwal
11
11
add a comment |
add a comment |
user623855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user623855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user623855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user623855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448533%2ftotal-energy-of-a-system-what-is-it-exactly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Body has energy of movement, that is kinetic energy. Potential energy is defined as a work of certain (so-called conservative) forces to a body. So total energy in mechanics is simply the potential energy plus kinetic energy.
– Pygmalion
2 hours ago
@Pygmalion : why don't w consider the work of the non conservative force in the total energy ?
– user623855
2 hours ago
Because it turns into other non-mechanical forms of energy (internal energy, heat...)
– Pygmalion
1 hour ago
@Pygmalion Please post answers as answers and not as comments
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago