Why does the work-energy theory ignores potential energy?

Why Does the Work-energy Theory Ignores Potential Energy?
Why does the work-energy theory ignores potential energy? Image link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
C O N T E N T S:

KEY TOPICS

  • This equation means that the total kinetic and potential energy is constant for any process involving only conservative forces.(More...)

POSSIBLY USEFUL

  • Gravity is also doing work on the object, and because that force is in the opposite direction as the displacement, this is negative work - hence gravity takes energy from the object.(More...)

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES

KEY TOPICS

This equation means that the total kinetic and potential energy is constant for any process involving only conservative forces. [1] The internal energy of a system is the sum of the kinetic energies of all of its elements, plus the potential energy of all interactions due to conservative forces between all of the elements. [1] Potential energy can only be defined for conservative forces, whereas kinetic energy is always well defined. [2] Since the total mechanical energy is conserved, kinetic energy (and thus, speed) will be greatest when the potential energy is smallest. [3] Since the internal energy of the system is conserved, you can calculate the amount of stored energy by measuring the kinetic energy of the system, the moving car or dart, when the potential energy is released. [1] This form of the equation means that the spring?s initial potential energy is converted partly to gravitational potential energy and partly to kinetic energy. [1] Assuming negligible friction, the potential energy in the spring is first completely converted to kinetic energy, and then to a combination of kinetic and gravitational potential energy as the car rises. [1] Now, if the conservative force, such as the gravitational force or a spring force, does work, the system loses potential energy. [1] The work done against a conservative force to reach a final configuration depends on the configuration, not the path followed, and is the potential energy added. [1] The potential energy is the work done in lifting the mass of water above the ocean surface. [4] A bowling ball a certain height above Earth is going to have more potential energy than the same bowling ball the same height above the surface of the Moon, because Earth has greater mass than the Moon and therefore exerts more gravity on the ball. [1] In more general systems than the particle system mentioned here, work can change the potential energy of a mechanical device, the heat energy in a thermal system, or the electrical energy in an electrical device. [5] Learn about conservation of energy with a skater dude! Build tracks, ramps, and jumps for the skater and view the kinetic energy, potential energy, and friction as he moves. [1] Two measures define the energetics of the meddy, the available potential energy (APE) and its kinetic energy (KE). [4] The potential energy that is lost is transformed into kinetic energy. [3] The initial potential energy in the spring is converted completely to kinetic energy in the absence of friction. [1] The basic physics concepts of kinetic and potential energy were described in terms relevant to the ocean in Section 7.7.5. [4] In the vapour phase, a balance is established between kinetic and potential energy of H 2 O molecules. [4] This stored energy is recoverable as work, and it is useful to think of it as potential energy contained in the spring. [1] The work done or potential energy stored is 1 2 kx 2 1 2 kx 2. [1] Figure 7.12 Work is done to deform the guitar string, giving it potential energy. [1] Just that potential energy cannot be defined for all forces. [2] Sometimes this pressure potential energy is divided into two separate components: the air pressure potential, which occurs under unsaturated conditions when the soil has an air phase, and the hydrostatic pressure potential, which occurs when the soil is saturated and there is a hydrostatic pressure from an overlying water phase ( Jury et al., 1991, p. 51 ). [4] The pressure potential energy, or pressure potential, is the potential energy due to the weight of water at a point under consideration, or to gas pressure that is different from the pressure that exists at a reference position ( Baver et al., 1972, p. 297 ). [4]

The object will have a minimum gravitational potential energy at point ____. [3] The gravitational potential energy of the collapsing cloud accelerates the component helium atoms and hydrogen molecules inward. [4] Gravitational potential energy is one example, as is the energy stored in a spring. [1] A relatively dense gas cloud may collapse if its own gravitational potential energy is greater than its internal thermal energy. [4] In contrast to extratropical cyclones, which derive their potential energy from the ambient meridional temperature gradient, tropical cyclones derive their potential energy through the fluxes of latent and sensible heat at the air-sea interface. [4] However in this case gravity is taking that energy away and storing it as potential energy. [6] Potential energy requires a system of at least two objects, or an object with an internal structure of at least two parts. [1] Potential energy comes from the interaction between the ball and the ground. [1] Without the ground--in other words, Earth--the ball does not classically have potential energy. [1] In statically stable environments the buoyancy term can reduce TKE by converting it to potential energy by moving cold air up and warm air down. [7] The potential energy curves for the ground state and for the first four electronically excited states of O 2 are shown in Fig. 4.1. [4] Eddy potential energy is calculated using departures of instantaneous sea surface height and isopycnal heights from their mean values; currently satellite altimetry data are valuable for this, and in situ Argo profiling float data set will also be valuable after many more years of data are collected. [4] Another way of thinking about this is to compare the ball?s potential energy on Earth and on the Moon. [1] Hydrostatically powered samplers use the potential energy of the difference in hydrostatic pressure at the sea surface and the seabed. [4]

The conservation of both mass and energy therefore depends on various corrections made to energy in the theory, due to the changing gravitational potential energy of such systems. [8] The reason that rest masses cannot be simply added is that this does not take into account other forms of energy, such as kinetic and potential energy, and massless particles such as photons, all of which may (or may not) affect the total mass of systems. [8] How does an object having mass, such as a pencil at rest, store that much potential energy? I understand that an object in motion has kinetic energy. [9] If engineers can use potential energy (height) of an object to calculate how fast it will travel when falling, can they do the reverse and calculate how high something will rise if they know its kinetic energy (velocity)? (Answer: Yes, as long as you know either height or velocity, you can calculate the other.) [10] ANSWER: The roller coaster and the basketball are analogous because there is kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy only in each case. [9] As the mass rises, gravity will slow its rise, converting the kinetic energy into potential energy. [11] ANSWER: It is not a question of the mass "storing up" potential energy. [9] Wile E. Coyote exerts work to haul an anvil to the top of a cliff, giving the anvil potential energy, and this potential energy is then converted back into kinetic energy when the anvil falls back down to the bottom of the cliff, with friction effects causing losses along the way. [11] When Dexter reaches the end of the trigger pull, the spring mechanism is automatically released and the spring returns to its normal length, exerting force on the sphere to accelerate it out of the muzzle, and converting the potential energy into motion, or equivalently kinetic energy. [11] Remember that an object's potential energy (PE) is due to its position (height), and an object's kinetic energy (KE) is due to its motion ( velocity ). [10] This will show up in all the forms you suggest: sound, increased temperature of parts of the system, kinetic energy of all the fragments and the ball, and increased potential energy due to the broken bonds previously holding the vase together. [9] Students are introduced to both potential energy and kinetic energy as forms of mechanical energy. [10] Helmholtz was the first to articulate this concept in its modern form, though he referred to kinetic energy as "living" energy and potential energy as "tensional" energy. [11] Potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy by allowing the object to fall (for example, a roller coaster going down a hill or a book falling off a table). [10] A hands-on activity demonstrates how potential energy can change into kinetic energy by swinging a pendulum, illustrating the concept of conservation of energy. [10] Because of energy conservation, they must therefore acquire a negative potential energy equal in magnitude to the (positive) kinetic energy. [9] Since the gravitational potential energy (near the earth's surface) is simply mgy, the greater y is the greater potential energy is; therefore the kinetic energy is smallest (neglecting frictional effects) at the top of the path. [9] When they start rising, the kinetic energy begins to be converted to gravitational potential energy. [12] As the cars descend down a hill they pick up speed and kinetic energy; lose it again as they rise to the top of the next hill, acquiring potential energy; pick up speed and kinetic energy once more as they drop down the far side; and so on, with the energy gradually robbed away by friction until the cars finally come to a stop and the passengers stagger out. [11] Similar to the movement of a pendulum, an enormous wrecking ball when held at a height possesses potential energy, and as it falls, its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. [10] The ball starts with all potential energy, converts it to kinetic energy as it falls, and ends with all kinetic energy. [9] This may happen by converting system potential energy into some other kind of active energy, such as kinetic energy or photons, which easily escape a bound system. [8] This motion is often modeled by imagining a spring connecting the two atoms, and we know from simple harmonic motion that such motion has both kinetic and potential energy. [13] If you include the earth in the system, the kinetic and potential energy will remain constant in the absence of any air resistance. [9] Relate concepts of Kinetic and Potential Energy to real life examples, as well as to engineering examples. [10] Leibniz was the first to articulate the idea, coming up with the terms "vis viva" and "vis mortua", which were direct ancestors of the modern definitions of kinetic and potential energy respectively, but the word "energy" itself wasn't introduced until 1807, when it was suggested by the brilliant British polymath Thomas Young (1773:1829). [11] This video defines and describes kinetic and potential energy. [14] You'll also find out how kinetic and potential energy are transformed. [14] The sum of kinetic and potential energy in the system remains constant, assuming negligible losses to friction. [12] This is what potential energy is; note that it presents a way to internalize the work done by a force (weight in this case) so you never have to calculate the work done by that force again. [9] When you compress a spring you cause the atoms to be more closely spaced than they "want to be" and it takes work to scrunch them up like that, hence the potential energy. [9] Dexter does work pulling back on the trigger, with the work being stored up in the spring as potential energy. [11] If the weight is lifted 1 foot, then you have done 50 ft-lb of work on it, increased its potential energy by 50 ft-lb. [9] Let's slightly change your question and ask whether the acceleration at 30,000 ft would be larger than the acceleration at the surface of the earth because the potential energy is larger up there. [9] QUESTION: I have a question about finding the distance that a spring has been stretch using Hooke's Law vs. conservation of energy and the elastic potential energy equation. [9] I can also determing the distanced stretched by determining the energy stored through gravitational potential energy before the mass settles and transferring it to energy stored through elastical energy after the mass settles. [9] The thing that makes it harder is that potential energy will also include gravitational potential energy mgh because the height of the object varies during the launch time; also, the location where the projectile leaves the platform will not be when the spring is unstretched. [9] For our purposes here, I am going to set the potential energy equal to zero where the two objects are when they are at rest; therefore, these two particles have a total energy of zero. [9] I guess what I mean is that at some great distance between two objects, at some great distance this potential energy will be essentially zero. [9] And, no, all potential energy need not be converted to kinetic energy although it could be. [9] More specifically, it demonstrates how potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy and back again. [10] A swinging pendulum whose potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and back during the course of a swing from left to right. copyright Copyright Image created by Chris Yakacki, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2003. [10] Learn about the interaction of potential energy and kinetic energy in mechanical systems. [14] They can be categorized in two main classes: potential energy and kinetic energy. [12] The potential energy ends up as kinetic energy (thermal energy). [9] I know that EMC^2 tells one that maximum potential energy within a unit of mass. [9] ANSWER: The potential energy has its origins at the atomic level. [9] ANSWER: First choose potential energy to be zero at the bottom. [9] ANSWER: You cannot judge how fast something will go by its potential energy. [9] The diving board, however, is a different situation because the diving board is like a spring, that is when it is bent just before the dive it too has potential energy; so, for example, as the diver starts up from the position of maximum flex, the gravitational potential energy will be increaseing and the spring potential energy will be decreasing. [9] Then if one of these particles drifts closer, such that it cannot escape the gravitational pull between them, then suddenly the potential energy would be quite significant. [9] I assume each twist raises the seat and hence the gravitational potential energy, so why does it make multiple twists? My guess is it is something to do with the coil in the rope. [9] Thinking about the geometry, the only way the swing can twist is for it also to rise up and if the energy stored in the twists is insufficient to increase the potential energy that much, it will not be able to untwist on its own. [9] Here the water at a high altitude has a large potential energy and when it falls its energy decreases so it must give us some energy. [9]

According to Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, each particle of matter has inherent potential energy proportional to the particle's mass and the square of the speed of light (c). [15] It is acceptable to consider that both d V and d x are equal to zero such that we can ignore the changes in kinetic energy and only consider the changes in potential energy. [16] The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of dissipation of kinetic and potential energy observable in nature. 8 The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. [17] Recall that in the section of this book dealing with gravitational potential energy, that was how the Schwarzschild radius was derived -- as the distance from a massive compact object where the escape velocity would equal the speed of light. [18] In addition to kinetic energy, potential energy contains chemical potential ( μ ) and electric potential ( φ ) in the case of changing the numbers of particles (d N ) or charges (d q ). [16] When a nucleus is formed from its constituent nucleons there is a loss of potential energy but a gain in kinetic energy for a net energy loss that is manifested in the form of the emission of s gamma ray. [19] Potential energy is dependent on the object's mass, its height (h) and the acceleration due to gravity (g). [15] However there is reason to believe that the.loss of potential energy is proportional to the mass deficit binding energy. [19] Now imagine the ball rolling down a hill, it is now in a state of disequilibrium, there is a constant input or release of energy from the system as it travels across a gravitational gradient, in this processes we can say that its potential energy is being dissipated. [17] This ball is really just travelling from one equilibrium to another, it will get to its lowest gravitational potential energy sooner or later and then stay there. [17] Because water does exist and gravitational potential energy is a well understood concept. [20] Where does the energy come from? Some say it is from the water in rivers storing up potential energy at the Dam wall, but I think that is just wishful thinking. [20] Binding energy is described as the enrgy required to break a nucleus apart into its constituent nucleons, The total binding energy of a nucleus also includes the loss in potential energy involved in its formation as a nucleus. [19] This equation matches the fact that the co-stimulation of neurotransmitters norepinephrine (NE) and ATP can effectively convert the electrochemical potential energy stored in the mitochondrial proton gradient into heat via the mitochondrial uncoupling protein-1 (UCP1) in BA (Xie et al. 2017b ). [16]

POSSIBLY USEFUL

Gravity is also doing work on the object, and because that force is in the opposite direction as the displacement, this is negative work - hence gravity takes energy from the object. [6] By using the non-conservative force work energy theorem, Work done by friction(Wf) (KEf-KEi) + (PEf-PEi). [21] This time friction acts in the direction of movement and it can do work (in fact it always take energy away from the body), but we usually neglect this fact, as much as we do with air friction. [22] By doing work on the object, you are in fact adding energy to the object. [6] Work transfers energy from one place to another or one form to another. [5] Lesson 2 has thus far focused on how to analyze motion situations using the work and energy relationship. [3] When you wind up a toy, an egg timer, or an old-fashioned watch, you do work against its spring and store energy in the spring. [1]

As universe expands without limit, dark/vacuum energies are created too so is the energy that can be created (potential energy/potentiality) i. [6] The amount of energy stored depends only on how many times it is wound, not how quickly or slowly the winding happens. [1] From time to time, people claim to have invented a machine that will run forever without energy input and develop more energy than it uses (perpetual motion). [23] The former is defined as the energy that would be released by restoring all the density surfaces to a reference state at which all pressure gradients and hence motion associated with the meddy will vanish. [4] When the flow is statically stable but dynamically unstable, the vertical component of turbulence is partly suppressed by the negative buoyancy of the rising air and the positive buoyancy of the sinking air--a process referred to as buoyant consumption --resulting in anisotropy with moderate TKE in the horizontal motion component but very little energy in the vertical component. [7] The total energy put into the system, whether through winding or pumping, is equal to the total energy conserved in the system, minus any energy loss in the system--such as air leaks in the dart gun. [1] A dart gun using compressed air stores energy in its internal structure. [1]

Based upon the types of forces acting upon the system and their classification as internal or external forces, is energy conserved? Explain. [3] Once collapse heats the gas to a modest temperature of a few hundred kelvins, the gas will readily become rotationally excited by collisions, and the rotationally excited molecules will emit their excitation energy in the far infrared. [4] Long and Ewing (1973) investigated the infrared and visible spectra of oxygen at temperatures of ? 90 K and reported structured absorptions attributable to the dimer, where the binding energy of the dimer was 0.53 kcal mol ?1. [4] The energy required to excite vibration of the hydrogen molecule corresponds to a temperature of about 3000 K, whereas pure rotation can be excited by collisions at temperatures near or above 300 K. As the opacity grows, more and more of this energy is stored internally in the cloud. [4] In the most favorable (and reasonably realistic) case, in which the collapsing gas cloud is fairly transparent to infrared radiation, the temperatures of the molecules in it will be governed by exchange of energy with the outside universe (which is changing very much more slowly than the collapsing cloud). [4]

Use the law of conservation of energy (assume no friction) to fill in the blanks at the various marked positions for a 1000-kg roller coaster car. [3] Because of the short collision time, the uncertainty in the energy, i.e., width of the absorption, is correspondingly large, leading to broad, structureless absorptions (e.g., Blickensderfer and Ewing, 1969 ). [4] The energy stored inside depends only on how many times it is pumped, not how quickly or slowly the pumping is done. [1]

Here an outer-orbital electron is transferred to the vacancy, and the excess energy is released through the emission of another outer-orbital electron ( XYZ Auger electron). [7] That sounds like a source of energy that you have not accounted for. [21] Photo choppers do not subtract energy, reed switches subtract a very small amount and tachometers subtract a considerable amount. [7] Indicate whether the energy of the ball is conserved and explain why. [3] How much energy does a bowling ball have? Just think about it for a minute. [1]

The conversions of energy are proportional to perturbation heat fluxes in the horizontal and vertical. [4] They collide and partition their increased energy between translational (thermal) motion and internal vibration and rotation of the hydrogen molecule. [4] Under statically unstable conditions with rising thermals, the largest eddies are strongly anisotropic, with much greater turbulent energy in the vertical motion component than in the horizontal component. [7]

The total mechanical energy (i.e., the sum of the kinetic and potential energies) is everywhere the same whenever there are no external or nonconservative forces (such as friction or air resistance) doing work. [3] Molecules cannot approach towards each other below a certain threshold, which is determined by the balance between attractive forces (i.e. the potential) that tend to establish some order, and kinetic energy (i.e. the temperature) that tends to generate chaos and destabilize order. [4]

The work-energy theorem states that the work done by all forces acting on a particle equals the change in the particle's kinetic energy. [5] Work-Energy theorem expressed in terms of kinetic energy is always applicable, irrespective of what kind of force is doing the work. [2]

Whenever work is done upon an object by an external or nonconservative force, there will be a change in the total mechanical energy of the object. [3] If only internal forces are doing work (no work done by external forces), there is no change in total mechanical energy; the total mechanical energy is said to be "conserved." [3]

In temperate and arctic lakes, the overall depth of mixing in summer is reduced relative to tropical lakes for the same heat loss and flux of turbulent kinetic energy due to the greater work required to entrain the more stably stratified water below. [7] The answers given here for the speed values are presuming that all the kinetic energy of the ball is in the form of translational kinetic energy. [3] The kinetic energy of the block increases as a result by the amount of work. [5] Most work on lakes has focused solely on the influence of wind and largely has ignored the possibility of other sources of kinetic energy. [7] This definition can be extended to rigid bodies by defining the work of the torque and rotational kinetic energy. [5]

Recall from basic physics that kinetic energy is K E 1 2 m V 2, where m is mass and V is velocity. [7] In meteorology we often use specific kinetic energy, namely KE / m, or the kinetic energy per unit mass. [7]

Another way to solve this problem is to realize that the car?s kinetic energy before it goes up the slope is converted partly to potential energy--that is, to take the final conditions in part (a) to be the initial conditions in part (b). [1] As the object moves from point A to point D across the surface, the sum of its gravitational potential and kinetic energies ____. [3] Note that, for conservative forces, we do not directly calculate the work they do; rather, we consider their effects through their corresponding potential energies, just as we did in Example 7.8. [1] The flux of water vapor at the air-sea interface raises the specific humidity of the inflowing air by up to 5 g kg ?1, resulting in an increase in equivalent potential temperature of up to an additional 10-15 K by the time the air reaches the eyewall. [4] The surface air temperature in the eye is typically only a few degrees higher than that of the surface air in the undisturbed tropical environment, but the potential temperature may be 5-10 C higher. [4]

In any case, because of the relatively large O 2 concentration in air, such complexes have the potential to exist in significant amounts compared to other trace gases (e.g., Calo and Narcisi, 1980 ; Perner and Platt, 1980 ). [4] In the case of close molecular distance or low temperature, the potential establishes mutual interactions that weakly involve the molecular population as a whole and some correlation between them is established. [4] Pressure potentials due to gas may be measured with manometers. [4] In saturated soil, the pressure potential is sometimes called the piezometric potential ( Baver et al., 1972, p. 297 ), because it can be measured with a piezometer. [4]

These two pathways produce curves that in most cases are not identical; the water content in the "drying? curve is higher for a given matric potential than that in the "wetting? branch ( Figure 10a ). [4]

Kinetic energy is transferred to water bodies by several means; most notable for gas exchange in lakes are wind shear and buoyancy flux. [7] The strongest eddies, such as Agulhas rings, propagate away from the mean flow that created them, accounting for broader EKE maxima compared with the speed (mean kinetic energy) maxima. [4] The actual speed values would be slightly less than those indicated. (Rotational kinetic energy is not discussed here at The Physics Classroom Tutorial.) [3]

The object gains _____ Joules of kinetic energy during this interval. [3] Therefore, the object will have less kinetic energy at point C than at point B (only). [3] Normally when you give an object energy, the object gains kinetic energy. [6]

Eddy kinetic energy (EKE) is calculated using departures of the instantaneous (synoptic) velocity from the mean velocity, regardless of how the mean is defined (leaving some ambiguity that should be carefully described in any given study). [4] If we can measure the ball?s velocity, then determining its kinetic energy is simple. [1]

XPS measures the kinetic energy distribution of electrons (photoelectrons) emitted from core levels of the elements constituting a solid when the sample is irradiated by X-rays ( Fig. 2.5.1 ). [7] Electrons that escape to the surface from deeper parts of the sample may lose kinetic energy through inelastic scattering. [7]

In actuality, some of the kinetic energy would be in the form of rotational kinetic energy. [3] This equation is a form of the work-energy theorem for conservative forces; it is known as the conservation of mechanical energy principle. [1] The spring force and the gravitational force are conservative forces, so conservation of mechanical energy can be used. [1] Since it is an internal or conservative force, the total mechanical energy is conserved. [3]

There is a relationship between work and mechanical energy change. [3] Friction would do negative work and thus remove mechanical energy from the falling ball. [3]

Eddy kinetic energy from altimetry is often compared to that from drifters, with the difference attributed to wind-driven motion and smaller scales not resolved by altimetry. [7] The total mechanical energy initially is everywhere the same. [3]

Use your understanding of the work-energy theorem to answer the following questions. [3] Let us now consider what form the work-energy theorem takes when only conservative forces are involved. [1] When developing the theory of special relativity there comes a time when we want to ask what is the energy of a particle, that is what changes when we do work on the particle. [9] As Max Planck pointed out, a change in mass as a result of extraction or addition of chemical energy, as predicted by Einstein's theory, is so small that it could not be measured with the available instruments and could not be presented as a test to the special relativity. [8] In relativity theory, so long as any type of energy is retained within a system, this energy exhibits mass. [8] This theory implied several assertions, like the idea that internal energy of a system could contribute to the mass of whole the system, or that mass could be converted into electromagnetic radiation. [8]

This is the "potential energy" of the mass, and is the same as the amount of work required to raise it that height. [11] The real problem here is that the potential walls are infinitely high and if you instantaneously move the wall to the center then there is half of the original wave function outside the well at t 0, and this is forbidden due to the height of the wall being infinite and so the implication is that an infinite amount of work has been done to get some of the wave function in that forbidden region; this means, of course, the particle now has infinite energy. [9]

I know the total energy potential of 1 kilogram would be about 90 petajoules (assuming I remember my formulas correctly) This is what I don't get I know there are 4 binding forces, gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak. [9] At the top the energy is all potential, mgh, and at the bottom all kinetic, ½ mv 2 + I 2, translational plus rotational. [9] You'll learn how different types of energy can be classified as potential and kinetic. [14]

Emc 2 means that the energy of an object at rest is its rest mass times the speed of light squared, but light is never at rest so you cannot use this formula to find its energy. [9] The momentum may be written for a particle of mass m and speed v as p mv / where c is the speed of light; it may also be written in terms of the energy E of the particle as p / c. [9] For moving massive particles in a system, examining the rest masses of the various particles also amounts to introducing many different inertial observation frames (which is prohibited if total system energy and momentum are to be conserved), and also when in the rest frame of one particle, this procedure ignores the momenta of other particles, which affect the system mass if the other particles are in motion in this frame. [8] Regarding the rest of your question, when an electron drops to a lower orbit the mass of the atom decreases by exactly the right amount to supply the energy to the photon. [9] FOLLOWUP QUESTION: In a previous answer you stated the mass of an electron decreases as it shifts to a lower orbit and releases a quantum (hf) of energy. [9] The answer is, yes and in fact nuclear physicists and particle physicists usually specify the mass of a particle by specifying its rest mass energy ( mc 2 ); for example, the "mass" of an electron is 511 keV (keV is kilo electron volt, a unit of energy). [9] ANSWER: A virtual photon (the emission of which violates energy conservation) may exist only for a very short time after which it must be reabsorbed by the original electron or absorbed by another charged particle. [9] The question of whether a photon has mass because it has energy is addressed in an earlier answer. [9] Three 0.4 gram bbs (total mass of 1.2 grams) at 273 ft/s has an energy of 44,717, nearly 5 times as much energy. (You made a mistake somewhere since you later in your question refer to 0.5 instead of 0.4 gram bbs, but this mass would have even more energy.) [9] The conservation of relativistic mass implies the viewpoint of a single observer (or the view from a single inertial frame) since changing inertial frames may result in a change of the total energy (relativistic energy) for systems, and this quantity determines the relativistic mass. [8] The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system's mass cannot change, so quantity cannot be added nor removed. [8] QUESTION: the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy in an isolated system will not change. [9] ANSWER: First, state the law: The total energy in an isolated system will not change. [9]

ANSWER: When light encounters a substance, it changes its speed (slows down) and loses energy because of its interactions with primarily the electrons in the material. [9] ANSWER: Where did you get the idea that "energy has mass"? Light has energy but does not have mass. [9] ANSWER: There is always mass energy associated with binding forces, but you cannot trace mass energy to binding. [9] I do recording for the blind and recently read a discussion regarding just what you are asking, viz. how can you say I am not doing work when I hold a box when I know energy is required to do so? The gist of the answer is that muscles exert a force by individual fibers of the muscle continually slipping and then recontracting, so for this special case the individual componenets of the total force are all contiually pulling over a distance and hence doing work. [9] Because the only force on the pendulum bob does no work, because it is always perpendicular to the motion, the total energy of the system never changes, that is it is conserved. [9] One simply calculates the work done by a force and defines that to be the change in energy of the particle. [9] For example energy may be written as a force times a distance (this kind of energy is often called work) and force has dimensions ML/T 2, and distance is, of course, L, so together they are ML 2 /T 2. [9] For a simple example of work and energy in action, imagine that Dexter lifts a mass against the Earth's gravity. [11] Specific heat is the amount of heat needed per unit mass to raise the temperature by 1 degree C. Gases are a little different from solids or liquids in that they can appreciably expand when heated, hence losing some of the energy to work done by the expansion. [9] Unless radioactivity or nuclear reactions are involved, the amount of energy escaping (or entering) such systems as heat, mechanical work, or electromagnetic radiation is usually too small to be measured as a decrease (or increase) in the mass of the system. [8] ANSWER: Specific heat quantifies the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 kg of something by 1 degree C. An inifinite specific heat would mean that you add energy to the object but its temperature does not increase at all. [9] ANSWER: I do not know what you mean by gravity "radiates a significant amount of energy". [9] ANSWER: You are asking two questions; if a 95 mph ball loses energy faster than a 90 mph fastball (it does) you cannot conclude that it "is faster" (by which you mean, I presume, when it passes over the plate). [9] QUESTION: we know that mass is a state of energy, but can energy exist without mass? I mean energy itself, not the energy being transferred. [9] QUESTION: Conversion of mass to energy (fission) has been demonstrated many times in laboratory and field tests. [9] They do not lose energy significantly differently (the faster pitch lost more speed in a shorter time so its average rate of change of speed was indeed bigger). (I used 3 inches for the diameter, 0.145 kg for the mass, and 60'6" for the distance to the plate.) [9] The binding energy (which itself has mass) must be released (as light or heat) when the parts combine to form the bound system, and this is the reason the mass of the bound system decreases when the energy leaves the system. 18 The total invariant mass is actually conserved, when the mass of the binding energy that has escaped, is taken into account. [8] Since energy and mass are interchangeable I feel like light must have at least convertible mass. [9] For visible light the source is typically an atom which essentially behaves like an antenna when emitting a photon; here the atom drops from an excited state to a lower state, thereby providing the energy to the photon, but this does not impel it to move since it must move by its very nature. [9] QUESTION: According to Albert Einstein's equation "EMC2", If you accelerate an object at twice the speed of light, will it become energy? And does it matter what type of physical composition the object has? The last question I ask. [9] Suppose that a very massive object collides elastically (which means no energy is lost in the collision) with a very light object at rest; imagine a bowling ball hitting a BB. After the collision the speed of the bowling ball is almost the same as what it was when it started and the speed of the BB is almost twice the bowling ball's initial speed. [9] The equation shows that the energy of an object approaches infinity as the velocity v approaches the speed of light c, thus it is impossible to accelerate an object across this boundary. [12] FOLLOWUP QUESTION: A followup question if you don't mind -- just to check my numbers: If the speed of light squared is roughly 900,000,000 m/s then a 1 kilogram block of butter should yield 900,000,000 joules of energy - right? One website said that a 100 watt light bulb requires 8,640,000 joules to burn for 24 hours. [9] QUESTION: When energy is used to do work like move something or break something, is all the energy still conserved in another form or is some of it used up in the work? If, for example, you hit a concrete block with a hammer and shatter it, where does the energy from the blow end up. [9] Light can certainly convert into mass; the best known example is called pair production where a photon (with sufficiently high energy) turns into an electron-positron pair. [9] Normally, the classic example of electron-positron annihilation results in annihilation resulting in two photons (or rarely, more than two photons) because the mass energy available is not large enough to create anything else. [9] It doesn't even hold for the creation of energy since the photon is not created by annilating mass, but rather by an electron shifting orbit. [9] The mass of a hydrogen atom is less than the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron because of the binding energy; since it takes energy to pull the atom apart, it must have less mass than the sum of its parts. [9] ANSWER: What makes you think that having a mass is a prerequisite to having energy? If you accept the conservation of energy, then when an atom decays it loses energy (its mass actually becomes slightly less). [9] ANSWER: Since the sun is radiating energy, its mass must be getting smaller. [9] Since we understand mass as just a form of energy, it may change into a different kind of energy thereby changing the mass of a system. [9] The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity under the principle of mass-energy equivalence, which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity. [8] Back in the real Universe, one simple example of the law of conservation of energy is to catapult a mass into the sky and determine how high it goes. [11] In your second determination, if you put the mass at its equilibrium position (at xd ) you must do work on the system and you cannot use energy conservation; it will not go there on its own. [9] If you pull them apart, you have to do work, right? Hence you increase the energy of the system and therefore increase the mass. [9] If you would accelerate a hydrogen atom to an energy of 100 TeV (greater than any accelerator on earth can achieve) you would increase its mass by a factor of about 100,000, so it would have a mass on the order of 10 -20 kg. [9] I estimate roughly that if all the energy from the sun striking the earth were absorbed the mass of the earth would increase by about 1 kg per second. [9] The reason is that the warping of space-time (which causes gravity) increases with increasing energy density and a rapidly moving mass has a larger energy density than a slower one. [9] What do you think of the possibility that dark energy is also diffused throughout higher dimensions, thus explaining why it appears weaker than it should be in our 3D universe? (If necessary I could look up the exact ratios of gravity to strong, weak, and electromagnetic force and I could look up some similar stats on dark energy predictions vs observations but I don't think this is necessary to answer my question.) [9] QUESTION: In isotope decays and nuclear reactions, many sources give the energy of the products (neutrons, alpha particles etc.) in MeV. I understand that MeV is a measurement of energy (and has a standard conversion factor to joules) but I don't understand how to calculate the speed/momentum of the out-going particle from this, or the recoil force on the reactants. [9] QUESTION: Regarding the de Broglie wavelength and simple model of a particle bouncing back and forth in a closed box (and no force field therein), I am trying to understand where the energy comes from if I do the following conceptual experiment. [9] QUESTION: Can a particle accelerator create more energy than is needed to operate it? youir answer is very much appreciated. [9] ANSWER: The energy of any particle is E where p is the linear momentum. [9] Invariant mass is a system combination of energy and momentum, which is invariant for any observer, because in any inertial frame, the energies and momenta of the various particles always add to the same quantity (the momentum may be negative, so the addition amounts to a subtraction). [8] The energy from the light gets converted into mass via Emc 2, but that amount of mass is extraordinarily tiny, way smaller than you would be able to measure. [9] The reason is that a higher percentage of mass is converted to energy in fusion because of the differences in binding energies of very light and very heavy nuclei. [9]

If you have an electron and a positron (the electron's antiparticle), they will annihilate each other and energy in the form of photons (light, basically) will appear and have exactly the energy of the masses times c 2. [9] If C is slower in those materials where do the photons get the energy to return to C(vacuum) once they exit the medium? Is it actually that C does not change and that the photons are refracted and simply take more time to travel through the medium? I sometimes teach radio antenna theory and this is what I've always told my students, not that C becomes less. [9] Now, if you view this photon from a different reference frame (moving with respect to the first), the photon will have a different energy as determined by the special theory of relativity. [9] There is something in field theory referred to as vacuum polarization ; here, particles can "pop into and out of" existence as long as they pop out quickly enough that the apparent violation of energy conservation does not violate the uncertainty principle. [9] This is the first part of a two-part paper providing an analytical model of the indirect rebound effect, given a direct rebound estimate, that integrates consumer demand theory with the embodied energy of household spending from environmentally-extended input-output analysis. [24] Regarding "dark energy", I know of no accepted "theory" of it. [9] The recent experiments showing the accelerating expansion have led some cosmologists to reintroduce the cosmological constant which is the only "dark energy theory" I am aware of; in any case, the constant is empirical and not really predictive of anything. [9]

ANSWER: Because the water is very transparent to visible light, this means that very little energy is left in the water by the light passing through. [9] ANSWER: The amplitude of a light wave is usually specified by the maximum magnitude of the electric field, units of N/C (newtons per coulomb) and does not specify an energy. [9] The possiblity of converting electromagnetic energy into mass is addressed in another earlier answer. [9] ANSWER: There is no way to know since the energy of the x-rays depends on the target material used, not the energy of the electron beam used to excite the atoms. [9] ANSWER: There are lots of ways you can come up with Bohr's postulate, but when one first proposes a radical idea like this one the choice of constant is often empirical, that is you choose a constant which gives the right answers, in this case the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, the wavelengths of the spectrum. [9] ANSWER: It is really not possible to convert an isolated atom completely to energy. [9] ANSWER: The energy of a photon is not determnied by its speed but by its frequency. [9] ANSWER: A photon may decrease its energy (increase its wavelength) by colliding with something. [9] If the electrons were not replenished, the work function would increase so that, eventually, the photons would have insufficient energy to remove any more electrons. [9] Here you keep the particle in its ground state and slowly increase its energy so that you must do work on the particle. [9] In order to increase the temperature of something you have to add energy and this is done by causing heat to flow to it. [9] The energy carried by the absorbed light will show up as a slight increase of temperature of the box. [9] Since the energy stored is very small, this increase of mass would be impossible to observe. [9] The energy of the electron would increase appreciably even though its speed would not. (I have always thought that high-energy accelerators are not well named since very little acceleration goes on.) [9] Because both energy and momentum are the function of the same factors (the same masses and the same speeds), neither energy nor momentum can be conserved in the motions of the two balls, contradicting the law of conservation of momentum. [9] The law of conservation of energy is why most perpetual motion machines won't work. [11] The law conservation of mass and the analogous law of conservation of energy were finally overruled by a more general principle known as the mass-energy equivalence. [8] For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity. [8] In special relativity, the conservation of mass does not apply if the system is open and energy escapes. [8] What this suggests is that the formulas for energy and momentum are not special and axiomatic, but rather concepts which emerge from the equation of mass with energy and the principles of relativity. [12] Emc 2 is the energy of a particle of mass m at rest; a photon is never at rest and therefore this equation is not applicable to it. [9] At the LHC things go the other way: particles with very high energies are smashed into each other to create new particles, energy is turned to mass rather than mass to energy. [9] The reason we think of fission as a great source of energy is that this tiny amount of energy is a very large fraction of the mass energy of the fuel, on the order of 1%, huge compared with more conventional energy sources like burning coal. [9] "significant" is like only 1% of the original mass, so if the mass of the nucleus is say 5x10 -25 kg then the energy released by its fission would be about mc 2 (5x10 -25 )(3x10 8 ) 2 /1004.5x10 -10 J. To put this into perspective, 1 J is approximately the amount of energy required to lift 1 kg to a height of 10 cm. [9] Note that this is a very small effect, however, because the mass is so large to start with and a lot of energy takes only a small amount of mass. [9] Because helium has a very high binding energy, when fusion occurs the amount of energy released is on the order of 1% of the mass energy of the hydrogen fuel used in the reaction. [9] The amount of work done is equal to the change in energy, and so work and energy have the same units, joules. [9] Assuming that we know what energy is, work is whatever is done to change the energy of an otherwise closed system. (Actually, heat which is different from work can also change the energy of a system.) [9] This is how an internal combustion engine works for example; energy is added to the fuel (via chemistry) and the gas both heats up and expands (by moving the piston) propelling the car. [9] If it interacts with something, though, the light may be absorbed and converted into another form of energy; for example, something on which the sun shines may absorb some of the light and heat up. [9] No light source is 100% efficient; for example a light bulb converts most of its energy to heat, not light. [9] What does efficient mean regarding a light source? We normally think of an incandescent bulb as inefficient because a large fraction of the consumed energy goes into heat instead of light. [9] What this means is that a significant fraction of the mass energy is converted into heat (and other) energy. [9]

The energy has been converted into kinetic energy--the energy of motion--but the process is not completely efficient and heat is also produced within the cyclist. [12] Since the rest energy of a proton or a neutron is about 1 GeV1000 MeV, this method would be fairly accurate for up to tens of MeV kinetic energies. [9] You asked for the answer in watts, but a watt is not a unit of energy, it is a unit of power; power is the rate of using energy. (Notice some time that the units used for energy consumed on your electric bill is the kilowatt-hour, since power times time equals energy.) [9] ANSWER: In a recent New York Times Op-Ed piece by Brian Green he points out that the earth is being constantly bombarded by cosmic rays with far more energy than available at the LHC, and no black holes have caused any damage during the several billion years the earth has been here. [9] ANSWER: An electron does not "use" energy to rotate around the nucleus any more than the moon uses energy to rotate around the earth. [9] ANSWER: The energy released in a single fission event is on the order of millions of electron volts (MeV) and 1 MeV1.6 x 10 -13 Joules. [9] ANSWER: Not every photoelectric event is exactly at the surface and the electrons lose energy getting to the surface. [9] ANSWER: First of all, electrons do not have infinite energy. [9]

QUESTION: electron and photon have same energy 105ev.what is the ratio of their momentum if any.My friend asked me this question but i doubt its validty. [9] A photon could collide with an electron but energy and momentum considerations would cause almost no effect on the electron's path. [9] For a photon the momentum is proportional to the energy so uncertainty in momentum implies uncertainty in the energy of the photon, not its speed. [9] For particle 2 at rest, the equations resulting from applying momentum and energy conservation are v 1 u ( m 1 - m 2 )/( m 1 + m 2 ) and v 2 2 m 1 u /( m 1 + m 2 ) where u is the speed of approach of m 1. [9] The same slower speed of the ball initially at rest must be used in the calculation of both the total final energy and the total final momentum. [9] The key here is that energy is a scalar and angular momentum is a vector so two kinetic energies cannot add to zero but two angular momenta can. [9] William Thomson, later Lord Kelvin, is given credit for coining the term "kinetic energy," around 1849-1851. [12]

QUESTION: Discounting air resistance, does it take more energy to run outside than on a treadmill? Does the motion of the belt pull you along? Are the mechanics of running somehow different on the treadmill? This subject is discussed a lot among people looking to get outside to run this time of year. [9] QUESTION: Based on Physics, is a 90 MPH Fastball Slower or Faster than a 95 MPH. At work we are trying to determine if the 95 MPH fastball loses energy faster than a 90 MPH fastball. [9] Exerting a force does not require energy, only if the force does work. [9] Power is the rate at which the wind delivers energy to your sail and one way to calculate power is the product of the force times the velocity. [9] I have done no work on the system which would have provided the additional energy, and I don't need to determine the particle's position-velocity uncertainty profile at any time point. [9] The earth does work on it increasing its energy and the air does negative work on it decreasing energy. [9] Remember, you can always identify work being done by energy changing, and the book moving at constant speed horizontally has constant energy. [9] As you note, the source of energy to accelerate to here this speed, not to mention the amount of energy to get significantly closer to light speed, is a real problem. [9] Light itself carries energy at the speed of light; anything else carries its energy at a slower speed. [9] QUESTION: I have a question about light and its use for the purposes of creating environmentally friendly energy. [9] Where did it come from? That question is equivalent to the question "where did the universe come from" because the entire universe contains a certain amount of energy which never changes. [9] The mass-energy equivalence formula predicts that the change in mass of a system is associated with the change in its energy due to energy being added or subtracted: Δ m Δ E / c 2. [8] The catch here is that chemistry is an extraordinarily inefficient source of energy and you could never hope to measure the change in mass because it would be so small. [9] Mass changes in any system are explained simply if the mass of the energy added or removed from the system, are taken into account. [8] Unfortunately, this is an impossible experiment to do because chemistry is such an inefficient way of producing energy that the mass change would be incredibly tiny. [9] Suppose that you get 1,000,000 joules of energy by burning a few pounds of coal; this corresponds to a mass change of 10 6 /(3x10 8 ) 2 which is about 10 -12 kg. [9] A gamma ray, provided it has enough energy to create twice the electron mass, can create a positron-electron pair; this is called pair production. [9] And, yes, if the energy is decreasing, so is the total mass. [9] The mass-energy equivalence formula gives a different prediction in non- isolated systems, since if energy is allowed to escape a system, both relativistic mass and invariant mass will escape also. [8] The energy which the photons carry away from the flashlight get their energy from chemical reactions in the batteries and these chemical reactions result in a loss of mass. [9] The energy of a large mass is given to a small mass and therefore the large velocity. [9] There are ways to make energy from quantities other than mass and velocity. [9] If you make mass M disappear, you will make energy appear in some other form to the tune of Mc 2. [9] This equation says that mass is just another form of energy and tells you how much energy a mass m contains. [9] Special relativity also redefines the concept of mass and energy, which can be used interchangeably and are relative to the frame of reference. [8] One example is simply the radioactive decay of a nucleus: lost mass is where the energy of the radiation comes from. [9] Be sure to note that my answer is qualified by "as best we know"; there are indications that maybe we do not understand gravity as well as we think we do; examples of this are so-called dark matter and dark energy, both of which are really totally puzzling to scientists. [9] ANSWER: Not unless energy is added to it (for example, have a little bit of plastic explosive stuck to it) or it is thrown down instead of being dropped. [9] ANSWER: In principle he is right in the following sense: if you can take more energy from your environment than you lose via friction (heat, as you state), you can keep going forever. [9] ANSWER: Two reasons are: nuclear reactions leave the residual nuclei in excited states and gamma rays are emitted when they deexcite; and the fusion adds considerable thermal energy to the system resulting in black body radiation. [9] ANSWER: The frequency of a particle is its energy divided by Planck's constant. [9] ANSWER: The photon has a different energy in the moving frame and therefore a different frequency. [9] ANSWER: The average energy of a molecule is proportional to the temperature. [9] ANSWER: If you could keep the energy absorbed by the disk from leaving, there would be no difference in the final temperature. [9] ANSWER: You shouldn't really say more energy, you should say more energy per unit amount of fuel. [9] Where will the pendulum have the greatest amount of energy? (Answer: It has the same amount of energy wherever it is.) [10] ANSWER: Total energy of an isolated system is always conserved. [9] ANSWER: First of all, heat is energy transfer, not energy content. [9] ANSWER: Heat is a very special term which refers to energy transfer. [9] ANSWER: I guess I would reply "why not?" On what are you basing your expectation? Lets look at a greatly oversimplified situation from the perspective of energy conservation. [9] The general idea is to first drop the ball from a height h above the bottom of the track of radius R and find the speed of the ball at the bottom; we do this from energy conservation. [9] When a player hits a pitch for a homerun does the speed of the pitch at all affect the distance? Will a fastball go further than a slower pitched ball? One camp contended yes, as although some energy was lost at contact with the bat there was still a transfer of energy from fastball to bat. [9] QUESTION: if you had two balls of opposite polarity i.e. a negative and a positive ball, could they come together and stay together if they were incapable of giving up any energy to the surrounding space. [9] QUESTION: Can you describe the energy conversion that occurs when a tennis ball is dropped from waist height to the ground? Maybe you can do better than my teacher. [9] QUESTION: does dark energy exist within the realms of particle physics.as the distances are as vast in the cosmos. [9] I recently started wondering if light wavelength, frequency and amplitude are really measurements of pulsating light particles' detectable energy, as if the light particles are glowing or even turning off and on, rather than descriptions of the shape of a light particle's physical path. [9] Usually it is an atom, changing from an excited electronic state to a lower state, which emits light and the photon's energy is supplied by the excess energy of the atom. [9] In essence, an atom has a minimum amount of energy it can have (called the ground state); it is against the laws of physics for the atom to have any less energy than this. [9] Just so you are sure, an atom has a certain amount of energy and you do not need to keep adding energy to keep it going any more than you need to add energy to the earth to keep it going around the sun. [9] If you include the air in your system, then as the air takes energy away from the falling object the air must gain that amount of energy which would show up as the air heating up some. [9] The big rip, as I understand it, results in an infinite universe in finite time and so a finite amount of total energy spread over an infinite universe would be unobservable. [9] Of course, inversely, multiplying the power used times the time it is applied gives the total energy. [11] The intensity of a wave of light, the rate at which it transmits energy, is proportional to the square of the maximum electric field, that is a wave with twice the amplitude will have four times the brightness. [9] If you efficiently absorb the light with a black pool liner, the liner itself will warm up and transmit energy to the water both by conduction and by radiation of infrared energy (heat). [9] Obviously it requires energy, converting water into steam to create pressure to cook the food at higher temperatures than "normal" air pressure allows. [9] And, there is not that much of a "jet" and what there is quickly dissipates; the energy from this dissipation would show up as a slight increase in water temperature locally. [9] Incidentally, there actually is a slight increase in the mass because it has increased energy ( m E / c 2 ), but way too small to be able to measure with a scale. [9] It is certainly true that, given our current understanding of physical laws, experimental astronomical data suggest that there is much more matter in the universe than we observe directly as normal mass (dark matter?) and that the universe is expanding at an increaseing rate (dark energy?), but we do not really understand why these things are happening. [9] The formula implies that bound systems have an invariant mass (rest mass for the system) less than the sum of their parts, if the binding energy has been allowed to escape the system after the system has been bound. [8] The calculated value of this invariant mass compensates for changing energy in different frames, and is thus the same for all frames and observers. [12] The difference in system masses, called a mass defect, is a measure of the binding energy in bound systems - in other words, the energy needed to break the system apart. [8] The greater the mass defect, the larger the binding energy. [8] The mass of the helium is slightly less than the sum of the hydrogen masses, and this mass is where the energy comes from. [9] Now, energy had dimensions of ML 2 /T 2, and mass, of course, has dimensions of M. The only way you can put M and L/T together to get ML 2 /T 2, is M(L/T) 2 and hence mc 2 and not mc or mc 3 or any other combination. [9] Now, the person starts out with an energy of MgH where M is his mass and H is the height from which he jumps. [9] What this equation says is that a mass M, at rest, has an energy of Mc 2. [9] In fusion (or fission) a small percentage of the mass is converted to energy. [9] In one of the Annus Mirabilis papers of Albert Einstein in 1905, he suggested an equivalence between mass and energy. [8] Einstein speculated that the energies associated with newly discovered radioactivity were significant enough, compared with the mass of systems producing them, to enable their mass-change to be measured, once the energy of the reaction had been removed from the system. [8] If energy cannot escape a system, its mass cannot decrease. [8] Emc2 says energy and mass are different manifestations of the same thing. [9] They annihilate completely and their mass is instantly converted into energy. 2. [9] Where does this energy come from? The simple fact is that if you were to weigh the carbon dioxide and compare that weight with the carbon and oxygen you started with you would find less mass. [9] I would expect the mass gain from meteorite collisions to be bigger than from the sun's energy. [9]

An electron will emit energy if it is accelerated which is how a radio antenna works. [9] If you are interested in Compton scattering from a very high energy electron beam from an accelerator, then you would have to work out the kinematics for a moving electron. [9] Work done on or by the system on the environment changes the energy of the system. [9] Power is something else; it is the rate at which work is done or energy changes. [9] This chapter provides an introduction to these laws and demonstrates how they relate to the concepts of "work" and "energy". [11] If the gas can expand, as in your example, the energy can also go into work being done by the gas. [9] Still, you must do work because the energy of the system increases; you are the source, again, of the added energy. [9] In the 19th century, the notions of work and energy were investigated in detail by the British physicist James Prescott Joule (1818:1889) and the German physicist Julius Robert von Mayer (1814:1878), leading to the precise formulation of modern concepts of work and energy by another German physicist, Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz (1821:1894). [11] Energy and work are measured in "joules", named after James Prescott Joule. [11] Energy is conserved because there is no work being done by the tension ( T and v are perpendicular). [9] Are you doing any work? What is needed to do work? Energy, right? Does it take any energy to hold the book there? It certainly does. [9] It is not possible for you to move the wall in without doing work thereby increasing the energy of the particle/wave. [9] The rate at which work is done or energy is expended is defined as "power", which is measured in "watts", or joules per second. [11] No matter how elaborate the disguise, however, the idea that a machine can do useful work indefinitely without input of energy is a dead giveaway. [11] Watch online video lessons on work, energy, and power, and learn formulas, definitions, concepts, and more. [14] These lessons utilize engaging animations and on-screen dynamics to help you understand work, energy, and power concepts. [14] You'll also learn the basic important formulas that describe the relationships between work, energy, and power. [14] If you go out instaneously you leave (at t 0) the original wave function sitting there so the energy remains the same, no work done at all. [9] If the gas expands, it does work, that is it gives back some of the energy added. [9] Your muscles are doing work and the energy to do this work comes from chemical reactions in you body. [9] Energy in an isolated system is always conserved and does not have to appear as mechanical work. [9]

How much electricity can we save by using direct current circuits in homes? Understanding the potential for electricity savings and assessing feasibility of a transition towards DC powered buildings, accepted in Applied Energy. [24] QUESTION: When we split an atom we can produce a nuclear reaction, which can be destructive in the case of a bomb or constructive in the case of energy production. [9] QUESTION: Is there any possibility of a kinetically powered automobile which stores energy via a dynamo-type generator and transfers it to the engine? Since there are four rotating wheels to most consumer vehicles, the energy could be collected from at least four points. [9] QUESTION: Energy balance question: A physicist is standing on a pier along which a freighter is moving at 10 mph. [9] QUESTION: This has to do with the energy content of gasoline and the energy needed to move a car. [9] FOLLOWUP QUESTION: I still am having difficulty with the energy source of a shorter de Broglie wavelength. [9] QUESTION: I was wondering about the ubiquitousness of Planck's constant in energy equations. [9] QUESTION: I have read that francium has a higher first ionization energy than cesium. [9] QUESTION: What is the energy balance(Released from-Required for) in the process of nuclear-Fission of Hydrogen and nuclear-Fusion of Uranium. (Why Fission of uranium and Fusion of Hydrogen is so much talked about and not 'vice versa'). [9] My question is, where did the energy come from? My moving of the wall did not add energy to the system. [9]

In a material, the energy could be transferred to the atoms of the material and then the "stopping" is simply a disappearance of the light. [9] Recently physicists have successfully stopped light (in a very ultracold cloud of atoms) and then been able to "restart" it, but this is done by storing the energy and information in the atoms and then cleverly retrieving them. [9] When light enters a medium, it will be absorbed only if there are electronic levels in the atoms and molecules which can receive the energy of the light. [9] An atom has many allowed energy levels and when it is in an excited state it will fall down to its lowest state and spit out a photon. [9] And, if there is an inelastic collision between two atoms, one or both become excited and then they deexcite by radiating photons which have the energy lost initially in the collision; energy is always conserved in an isolated system. [9] Putting the electrons outside then became imperative and Bohr invented his model of the atom by postulating certain rules for orbits which would be special in that electrons in those orbits would not radiate away energy. [9] An electron collides with atoms and transfers some of its energy to them thereby heating up the material. [9] Historically, such a model was ruled out because an electron moving in a circle radiates its energy away and it would very quickly spiral into the center of the atom. [9] The recombination is not possible with a single electron and a single proton because energy and momentum conservation cannot be obeyed. [9] Your first sentence is a statement of conservation of energy: the total energy of an isolated system never changes. [9] The first law of thermodynamics is simply conservation of energy: the total energy of an isolated system must remain unchanged, that is you can never get something for nothing. [9] Another interesting simple example of the law of conservation of energy is the kind of spring-loaded toy gun that shoots little plastic spheres. [11] In this video lesson, you'll learn how pulleys do this as well as how this is possible while still obeying the law of conservation of energy. [14] The problem that I am finding is that the estimated distance using Hooke's Law is always twice the estimated distance using the conservation of energy. [9]

In a nuclear reaction, as you note, the energy conversion is much more efficient and masses change by measurable amounts, something like 1%. [9] Would the amount of energy contained in a sphere (Planck length/2)^3 make that sphere larger or smaller, regardless of the fact that it remains the smallest unit measurable? If so, I can't help but visualize the universe as a bag of marbles--each marble being a Planck sphere. most of which are less massive than the Planck particle. [9] The only massless particle we know is the photon which has an energy Ehf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency. [9] The energy of any particle is E where p is the linear momentum. [9] Much energy (more than 17 MeV) is released in the reaction which ends with a 4 He nucleus and a neutron; the reason for this big energy release is that the alpha particle is very strongly bound. [9] The bottom line is that the increased energy the particle will have will come from whoever moves the wall and that wall cannot be moved instaneously. [9] Cosmic rays can have a broad spectrum of energies, an unpredictable location where they will hit, and an uncertainty as to what they will interact with if anything at all; accelerators put the particles where you want them, with the energy you want them to have, and on specifically what you want them to hit. [9]

ANSWER: For nuclei lighter than iron, fission results in a loss of energy, not a gain; that is you must add energy to cause fission. [9] ANSWER: The energy is not really enormous, it is only relatively enormous. [9] ANSWER: The problem is that the radio waves spread out as they travel and the energy gets spread over an ever-increasing area. [9] ANSWER: Power density, that is the energy per unit area of the beam. [9] ANSWER: This is a fusion reaction and, for a high probability of the reaction happening, the deuteron should come in with relatively small energy. [9] ANSWER: Yes, the ionization energy is slightly higher for francium, 380 vs. 376 kJ/mol. [9] ANSWER: Does it take energy to magnetize the bar? Yes, of course; let's call that energy E. [9] ANSWER: Folks with brilliant ideas for sources of energy often do not take into account the energy cost to create it. [9] ANSWER: First of all, the big rip is highly speculative and relies on dark energy which nobody has any idea what it is. [9]

Gravity waves have been indirectly observed by observing the orbital motion of two massive stars; here the energy of this binary system is systematically decreasing exactly at the rate predicted if gravitational radiation were responsible. [9] This is the only way i can descibe the 'invention' in my dream, but the end of the dream always becomes a nightmare where the trapped light builds infinitely from being trapped resulting in power that in my dream goes out of control etc. in other words in the experiment the energy engulfs me then i wake up. [9] White light emitting diodes offer efficient use of electrical energy and lower lighting / costs as well as reduced atmospheric pollution. [24] Light provides the energy for the chemistry which happens when the plant grows. [9] For reference, visible light is about 0.2 eV. (eV is an electron-volt, a unit of energy). [9] It cannot disappear because energy is conserved and light carries energy. [9] It is not the force you use but the energy something has by virtue of that force. [9] This is in violation of newton, to apply a constant force you need a constant supply of energy. [9] Torque is not energy, it is the rotational analog of force, so it would be confusing to measure it in joules. [9]

Any part of the system (life forms on earth, for example) may evolve to more ordered systems under the influence of other influences (energy from the sun, for example). [9] If you redo the second example for 10% energy loss (0.8 J) you will find the speeds after the collision are about 3.9 m/s (for the struck one) and 0.1 m/s for the incoming one. [9] For example if a k shell electron is ejected from the target material (let's say tungsten) and then if an L shell backfills the void, the ensuing x-ray is 57.4 keV(just the difference in electron binding energies), if M shell fills the void, then 66.7 keV, etc. Then they always give an "effective" energy value, which for k shell is 69 keV. They never explain where this "effective" value comes from. [9] The amount of energy released in a single fusion reaction is on the order of a million electron volts and 1 MeV1.6 x 10 -13 joules. [9] Compton scattering of photons (scattering from electrons) reduces the energy of the photon and the lost energy is carried off by the electron. [9] It is more likely to emit many photons as it falls but their total energy would have to be the same as the single 91 nm photon. [9] Now, what is conserved in an isolated system? The two important things are total energy and total linear momentum. [9] Proof: The above outcome is confirmed by the fact that the total final energy cannot be conserved in the above collision. [9] We often talk about individual types of energy, but how do you measure total energy? One way is to find the internal energy of a system. [14]

The temperature of something is a quantitative measurement of how much internal energy the object has. [9] All objects radiate energy to their environment and the rate of radiation is proportional to T 4 where T is the absolute temperature. [9] The temperature of something is a measure of how much of this kind of energy it has (per atom, on average). [9] If I have a cup of hot tea sitting on a table in the cool morning air, the jiggling atoms and molecules in the tea will bang into the relatively less jiggling atoms and molecules of the air, and impart the thermal energy into them, until thermal equilibrium is reached between the tea and the air. [9] If an atom is in its lowest (ground) energy state, it can go no lower, that is, cannot lose any energy. [9] If a certain state in a system decays to the groundstate of the system in a certain time, then the energy of that state cannot be measured perfectly accurately, that is the state has an inherent width or uncertainty. [9] How could those physicists be wrong? Quite simply because the apparatus they describe is designed to have a very low (not zero, since we agree that is not possible) energy loss when the gliders collide and to have minimum friction (not frictionless as you state). [9] From the perspective of a heat source, the incandescent bulb is the most efficient! Resistive heating is, in fact, an very efficient source of heat since nearly all the energy consumed goes to the desired purpose. [9] There are various forms of energy, including chemical energy, heat, electromagnetic radiation, nuclear energy, and rest energy. [12] I've told him that his idea might cut down the number of stops, but he will still have to stop thanks to energy lost in the form of heat. [9] These first stars lived out their lives creating heavier atoms until the stars had exhausted energy available from fusion and then exploded in events called supernovae which scattered and later became the stuff form which planets were formed. [9] The energy it carries, of course, does not disappear but is absorbed by the matter by exciting the atoms. [9] If one thing is hot and another cold, the hot one has a higher average energy per atom. [9] An energy level usually refers to a specific allowed energy of the atom. [9] Lower energy gamma rays from nuclei sometimes overlap what would be called x-rays if they came instead from atoms. [9]

To accomplish this he plans on harvesting the air resistance standard travel applies on the vehicle through something like a wind generator or turbine and solar cells over the cargo area as well as the standard breaking energy reclamation. [9] In more advanced studies we find things like the field actually has energy content, for example an electromagnetic field has an energy density. [9] A good example is ethanol as fuel which takes a large amount of energy to produce. [9] As the temperature is increased (to around 1500-3000 0 ) the radiated energy shifts so that a significant amount of the energy begins to be emitted at the lowest energy part of the visible spectrum, red, and not much at higher energies. [9] Both physicists calculate the same amount of energy required to accomplish this task. [9] The initial amount of energy applied to the cars is directly proportional to the height of the lift hill, and in fact the height of the lift hill is the most important single specification for a given roller coaster to an enthusiast. [11] Certainly every event following a specific fission event carries a discrete amount of energy. [9] Its a permanent magnet and the amount of energy used to magnatise it compared to the amount it expends holding itself aloft is disproportional. [9] Nuclear fission is often characterized as releasing a large amount of energy. [9]

In my discussion I will ignore energy the ball has due to its rotation and I will ignore friction. [9] As the wrecking ball makes contact with the structure to be destroyed, it transfers that energy to flatten or take down the structure. [10] We now say that mhg joules of energy are stored in the tennis ball by virtue of its position ( h above the ground). [9]

To get to a very high speed would require a very large energy input and the source would be difficult. [9] A cyclist will use chemical energy that was provided by food to accelerate a bicycle to a chosen speed. [12] You may be assured that no information or energy may be transmitted at a greater speed than c. [9]

When the cannonball hits the target and stops, this energy is converted into something else, for example heat, the target being torn apart, etc. [9] What happens is that when you heat a gas you add energy to it, that is you make all the molecules in the gas move faster. [9]

If you choose the falling object as the system, it is not isolated and so energy is not conserved. [9] Use appropriate measurements, equations and graphs to gather, analyze, and interpret data on the quantity of energy in a system or an object (Grades 9 - 12) Details. [10] The space is filled with radiation from all the rest of the universe and the object will eventually be absorbing as much energy as it radiates. [9] Let me outline, from the perspective of energy, what goes on with two objects separated by a large distance. [9] All objects emit electromagnetic radiation and your teacup is radiating infrared radiation which is invisible to our eyes but nonetheless carries energy. [9] Usually physicists show their students that the energy required to accelerate an object to c is infinite. [9]

Incidentally, horsepower is not a unit of energy but a unit of power, energy per unit time; the most common unit of power used by physicists is the watt which is a joule/second. [9] Take that number and divide it by the time for one revolution to get the rate (watts or kilowatts) that energy is being consumed. [9] For comparison, the entire output of the U.S. is about 10 6 megawatts, about 10 12 watts, so the solar energy is about 200,000 times our current energy output. [9] From that point of view, it is also surprising to realize that in modern times, energy is something we can actually measure to a high degree of precision. [11] Every time you compress the tire it costs energy; every time it uncompresses, you get energy back. [9] In empty space a particle-antiparticle pair may come into existence; because of the uncertainty principle, this "energy from nothing" is ok as long as it lasts a sufficiently short time. [9] There are many pairs of conjugate variables in physics, the other best known pair is energy and time. [9] There are other energy measures such as the erg (dyne cm(gm cm/s 2 ) cm) and eV (1 electron volt1.6x10 -19 J). [9] The electron can occupy any energy level (special orbits) but not halfway between two of them. [9] The power source gives back the lost energy to the electrons. [9] The highest this energy can be is the energy of the electron beam. [9] We conclude that an electron losing energy radiates electromagnetic energy. [9] In the production of characteristic x-rays several texts give the same table of energies indicating the energy of the characteristic x-ray produced for each of the various electron transitions. [9] This continuum is called bremsstrahlung (German for braking radiation) and results from the fact that electrons are slowing down and hence radiating energy. [9] Why electrons, if not static, did not radiate all their energy away was one of the main puzzles of late 19th century physics. [9]

Create a computational model to calculate the change in the energy of one component in a system when the change in energy of the other component(s) and energy flows in and out of the system are known. (Grades 9 - 12) Details. [10] Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; however, it can be converted from one form to another. (Grades 9 - 12) Details. [10] Energy comes in many forms and for any system can never be created or destroyed. [14] The energy "budget" before a physical event occurs remains exactly the same after the event occurs; only the forms are changed. [11] Note that the energy is not destroyed; it has only been converted to another form by friction.) [12] Such is the case when various forms of energy and matter are allowed into, or out of, the system. [8]

The idea that he could harvest energy from air friction using a fan of some sort is completely wrong. [9] With air friction it would eventually lose all its energy at be at rest at the center. [9]

Would it be like a small snap, or a large bang, or would it incinerate you? Just trying to get an idea of the energy released from a single event. [9] A gamma ray resulting from a fusion reaction has its energy determined by the reaction, not the environment (like density as you suggest). [9] You have to put energy into the accelerating charges and, if you like, you can think as that energy input as your "impetus". [9]

Here things will get complicated again since if you have two strings with the same amplitude and frequency, the more massive one has more energy to start with. [9] If you have no friction and the two strings each are radiating the same sound intensity, the lighter one will die out first since it had less energy to start with. [9] Since it takes energy to charge a capacitor, the whole system has more energy than it started with. [9] I suspect that the focused situation would end up less hot in the end since it would radiate away more energy. [9] I am similarly not very sympathetic with the current use of the terms dark matter and dark energy as being some kind of statements of experimental facts since nobody has any idea what they are. [9]

Melting I assume is the breakdown of the crystal lattice and boiling is enough molecules/atoms obtaining enough energy to achieve the vapour state. [9] Eliciting public concerns about an emerging energy technology: The case of unconventional shale gas development in the United States. [24] Within just a few years, though, partly motivated by the success of this model, a new branch of physics, quantum mechanics, was developed which provides an accurate picture of both how we should think about atomic structure and why certain atomic states do not radiate away their energy. [9]

The average energy per molecule will remain constant because that is what temperature measures. [9] At higher temperatures, (up to about 6000 0 or 8000 0 ) the energy is spread out over all the parts of the visible spectrum so the source appears white. [9] If you double the temperature, you double the average energy of a molecule. [9] If it were to stop it would violate a sacrosanct law of nature that energy is conserved. [9] This law is partly axiomatic, that is it is true because of the way we define energy and isolated system. [9]

Therefore, if you own a radio station you have to continue feeding energy into your antenna for it to continue to send out photons. [9] It is quite possible to convert a gamma ray into a bunch of low energy photons; this is what a scintillator does. [9] A photon has an energy determined by the frequency of the associated wave, Ehf. [9]

In this activity, students prove that the transformation of energy occurs by calculating the theoretical value of velocity at which a pendulum should swing and comparing it to a measured value. [10] In a bound physical system, energy is quantized, and angular momentum of the system is also quantized. [9] Electromagnetic radiation carries both energy and angular momentum. [9] Neither angular momentum nor energy are conserved as the system radiates. [9] I understand the equations that explain why energy and momentum is stored in the collision systems. [9] You need to know the de Broglie equation, h / p, and the relation between energy and momentum, E 2 p 2 c 2 + m 2 c 4. [9]

That doesn't mean that if you didn't put energy in the radio wave that it would just sit there; rather, it would not exist. [9] That paves the way for Congress to fund line items such as ARPA-E and maybe even budget increases: Senators from both sides of the aisle yesterday called for more technological innovation funding, from carbon capture to renewable energy. [25] Trump's cuts have been successfully opposed thus far, but the real test is whether Congress can marshal the political will to increase support for energy innovation to a level that will reap its full benefits. [25]

I quote: "gravitational perturbations from the giant planet imbued the planetesimals with too much orbital energy for them to accrete into a planet. [9] Given a pendulum height, students calculate and predict how fast the pendulum will swing by understanding conservation of energy and using the equations for PE and KE. [10] If there is nothing else around, this system will always have zero energy; this is conservation of energy. [9] Energy conservation forbids that you can get more energy out of a closed system than you put in. [9]

The resulting electricity will contain energy; where did that energy come from? In a power plant the energy being supplied (burning coal, falling water, etc.) is not just used to overcome friction and keep the thing going; it is used to create the electrical power being generated. [9] It takes a lot of energy to evaporate the water, on the order of 2500 J/gram. [9] Suppose that no energy were lost when the person hits the water (of course, not correct but an extreme case). [9]

The energy which falls on the earth is usually measured in power/unit area, that is the rate at which energy is arriving divided by the area over which it is spread. [9] Not all the energy stays here but the earth radiates some of it away. [9]

If you double the amount of work you double the change in kinetic energy, so you double the change in v 2 if mass is unchanged. [9] In SI units (used for most modern scientific work), mass is measured in kilograms, speed in metres per second, and the resulting kinetic energy is in joules. [12] In any other frame of reference there is additional kinetic energy corresponding to the total mass moving at the speed of the center of mass. [12] The total energy E can be partitioned into the energy of the rest mass plus the traditional Newtonian kinetic energy at low speeds. [12] QUESTION: What would be the total kinetic energy of a long, thin rod of length L and mass m which rotates with an angular velocity w and simultaneously has a constant translational velocity v. The rod rotates around an axis which is at the end of the rod, not through the center of mass of the rod. [9] QUESTION: Could you answer a question to solve an argument I'm having regarding Kinetic Energy? On a web forum, a participant is claiming that an object has an absolute amount of Kinetic Energy, and that this is dependent on all the accelerations it has ever undergone. [9] It is shown in any elementary physics text that this work increases the kinetic energy of the object by an amount equal to the work done by the weight. [9] Burning twice the fuel will give twice the work (energy) so the kinetic energy increases by a factor of two and the velocity increases by a factor of 2. [9] The conservation of both relativistic and invariant mass applies even to systems of particles created by pair production, where energy for new particles may come from kinetic energy of other particles, or from one or more photons as part of a system that includes other particles besides a photon. [8] Since the kinetic energy is much less than the rest mass of either particle, the problem may be treated nonrelativistically. [9] Another example: kinetic energy is the energy a particle has in addition to its rest mass energy. [9] ANSWER: First of all, they represent different things so why would you expect them to be the same? One is kinetic energy and the other is rest mass energy. [9] ANSWER: Well, fusion fuels the sun so look at the sun: an enormous amount of electromagnetic radiation comes out, lots of neutrinos come out carrying kinetic energy, the sun is very hot, that is the particles that make it up have very large amounts of kinetic energy. [9]

If a body's speed is a significant fraction of the speed of light, it is necessary to use relativistic mechanics (the theory of relativity as expounded by Albert Einstein ) to calculate its kinetic energy. [12] The required force to cause an acceleration g 9.8 m/s 2 is 9.8 N. However, the theory of special relativity shows that as an object goes faster and faster its mass increases so a larger and larger force is required to cause an acceleration of g. [9] Although there is no theory of quantum gravity, the mass of a graviton, if it exists, is expected to be zero because the force law is what it is. [9] General relativity, our best theory of gravity, correctly predicts the force to be inverse square law. [9] There is already a theory, the general theory of relativity, which tells what gravity "is"; it is the warping of space time by the presence of mass. [9] General relativity is mainly a theory of gravity saying that gravity is the warping of spacetime by the presence of mass. [9] Two earlier answers ( link#1 and link#2 ) may give you some more insight into general relativity, the theory of gravity. [9] ANSWER: The theory which explains what gravity is is called general relativity. [9] ANSWER: The theory of gravity (general relativity) is extraordinarily successful so, as you say, it is curious why we don't "just leave it alone". [9] ANSWER: Regarding gravity, your speculations are roughly in line with the best current theory of gravity, general relativity. [9] ANSWER: I have heard very smart theoretical physicists say that if we really understood time we might have a chance at developing a theory of quantum gravity, one of the main missing features of modern theoretical physics. [9] ANSWER: You may assume that there is no such thing as a graviton since there is no successful theory of quantum gravity; physicists talk about gravitons wistfully wishing them to exist. [9]

QUESTION: I am fascinated by particles, black holes, quantum mechanics, string theory, and especially gravity but hate doing math. [9] QUESTION: My colleagues and I have a debate about the "speed of light" actually being the upper limit of speed beyond which no matter can travel, based on Einstein's theory EMC^2. [9] QUESTION: But concerning light, If it falls out of the sky equally across my front yard, would a 10" round lens focusing light on a 10" round black piece of metal end up hotter than just a regular 10" round piece of black metal setting out in the sun? My theory would be that the one with the lens would be hotter. [9] QUESTION: My friend and I are having a debate about a certain topic trying to come up with different theories of how the mechanics of this process works, yet with each theory we develop we get pulled deeper into the problem with more possibilities and factors affecting the issue. [9] ANSWER: Any question about quantum field theory is too technical for the purposes of this web site which is meant to answer laypersons' questions. [9] ANSWER: One of the ingredients in a theory of heavy particle decay is the probability of the particle actually being formed inside the nucleus. [9] ANSWER: The idea of particle exchange is only a qualitative, "cartoon" way of trying to represent quantum field theory. [9]

Such a theory would inevitably include the quantum which transmits the force and this, a purely hypothetical and unobserved particle, has been dubbed the graviton. [9] There exists no quantum theory of gravity and hence it has no real connection with other forces. [9]

The demonstrations of the principle led alternatives theories obsolete, like the phlogiston theory that claimed that mass could be gained or lost in combustion and heat processes. [8] QUESTION: I would like to know if there is a theory(s) to a concept I've been thinking about, and would like to apply theoretically to another area of study if it can be explained. [9] QUESTION: Is Teleportation of a living being possible without contradicting Quantum Mechanics in theory ? I know Quantum Mechanics won't differ between living and non-living matter, but, to my knowledge, Teleportation is the act of getting data of an object, destroying it and then reproducing it. [9] QUESTION: Regarding Einsteins general relativety theory, and the speed of something relative to something else. [9] It is hard to imagine anything farther from a vacuum than the interior of a star! This constancy of the speed of light is the main ingredient of the theory of special relativity. [9] How does the speed of light weigh in on this theory? I thought I read somewhere that we could use the speed of light to disprove the creationist claim about the age of human life. [9] Light itself has the speed it does because of the theory of electromagnetism which predicts the speed of light to be a certain invariant number. [9]

QUESTION: A friend of mine thinks that theory of relativity disproves evolution, because 1 second last same as 50 000 years (for example). [9] ANSWER: No, your intuition is wrong here; that is what is really interesting about the theory of special relativity. [9] ANSWER: The special theory deals with transformations among systems which move with constant velocity with respect to each other. [9] ANSWER: First of all, I am not aware of string theory predicting a graviton; the problem with string theory is that it doesn't predict anything. [9] ANSWER: To actually present the theory here is too tedious and, I believe the exact answer may depend on how quickly you make the transition. [9] ANSWER: There is no "theory" per se, it is just part of elementary classical physics. [9]

Regarding your second question, the factors of 1/4 are for convience in electromagnetic theory to make some other equations come out in simpler form; there is never any real physical significance to how one chooses to write a proportionality constant. [9] QUESTION: Please forgive me, I don't know where this question falls in the realm of physics, but I have just watched a video on M Theory and string theory and have a question in regards to the other dimensions mentioned there. [9] QUESTION: I have just read about a story of Einstein. when he was 16, he had just studied Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory. [9]

The electrostatic force is also an inverse square law (Coulomb's law) and in this case the theory of quantum electrodynamics correctly predicts the 1/ r 2 dependence of the force. [9] Not only that, but I've been told that part of the theory of gravity involves gravity particles which have yet to be discovered. [9] It probably is not the last word since a theory of quantum gravity has not yet been devised. [9] There is no theoretical basis for a graviton either since there is no successful theory of quantum gravity. [9] Neutrons, unless bound inside nuclei, have a mean life of only about 15 minutes; so they would not be a good source for your gravity theory. [9] The theory of general relativity, which is essentially the accepted theory of gravity, is incompatible with quantum mechanics. [9] Here is my personal perspective: It is generally thought that we understand gravity very well, that is, the theory of gravity, called general relativity, has been extremely successful in describing a wide variety of phenomena. [9] General relativity is the extension of special relativity and is the theory of gravity. [9] Gravity is very well understood via the theory of general relativity. [9] In the theory of special relativity, if you choose momentum to have the same definition, you find that momentum conservation is lost. [9] From the theory of special relativity, we know that time, whatever it is, is not a separate thing but is "tangled up" with the three dimensions of space. [9] What we have learned from the theory of special relativity is that time and space are inextricably tied up with each other, that is, the concept of length and the concept of time are not separate concepts but interdependent. [9] You need to learn the theory of special relativity to understand how time and space are coupled. [9] His theory of special relativity clearly demonstrates that time is not a separate entity from the three dimensions of space, they are intertwined in a four-dimensional spacetime. [9]

I think it went something like this: A physical system will evolve over time in a path that minimizes the integral (with respect to time) of the Hamiltonian for that system (sum of potential and kinetic energy). [9] My text book states that Mechanical energy is the sum of K (kinetic energy) and U (potential enery), while the definition of mechanical energy states that mechanical energy is energy that depends on the position OR motion of the masses. [9] This video describes one important type of energy, mechanical energy, and provides examples of both kinetic and potential mechanical energy. [14]

In such systems, the molecules can have other forms of energy beside translational kinetic energy, such as rotational kinetic energy and vibrational kinetic and potential energies. [13] Given a pendulum height, students calculate and predict how fast the pendulum will swing by using the equations for potential and kinetic energy. [10]

QUESTION: I am trying to convince my uncle that his idea for a potential invention will not work as he thinks it will. [9] I read that you do the work for the magnet when you pick it up to sick it to the roof and you'll need to do the same amount of work to pry it off again so in essence you have done the work for it and you have simply transferred it to a different potential state. [9] Unless focusing "unlocks" potential heat that would otherwise be masked in light in its regular state. [9]

ANSWER: I won't judge how practical or efficient it is, but two dissimilar metals which form a junction will generate a potential difference across the two when heated. [9] ANSWER: No. The poles of a AA battery have a potential difference of about 1.5 volts regardless of their separation. [9] ANSWER: Quite simply, your instrument was not sensitive enough to measure the voltage, but if a current was flowing and the wire was not a superconductor, there was a potential difference but it was likely small. [9]

Your "mirror", which I presume is an infinite potential barrier on either side cannot instantaneously drop in without doing infinite work for the same reason the wall cannot move instantaneously in. [9] Potential difference (voltage) is a measure of the work it takes to move an electric charge from one pole to the other; if the poles are farther apart the field between them is weaker but the distance you must move the charge is farther and the work turns out to be the same. [9]

If a potential difference exists across the plates of a capacitor electrons will flow from one plate and on to the other (not the same electrons) until some limit is reached which depends on only three things, the potential difference, the geometry of the capacitor, and the material which is between the plates. [9] This is, obviously, not a possible situation; one eventually gets into conundrums like this when assuming infinite ( i.e. unphysical) potential barriers. [9] The "voltage" at the point depends on the potential difference which you have set between the point and the plate, for example by attaching a battery or power supply between them. [9] AC is not just AC; you need to have an constantly changing potential difference across two wires but what is the potential difference of either of these wires with respect to some other potential we might define as zero? The zero reference potential is usually simply the earth, that is we drive a steel stake into the ground and define that potential to be zero. [9] Why doesn't photoelectric current increase above saturation current even tho we apply more and more accelerating potential for a particular frequency. [9]

Kinetic energy of the wave goes into heat mostly; but you don't really notice it since there is so much sand and water and the temperature increase will be immeasurably small. [9] Most of this heating comes from the fan itself heating up (primarily the heating of the electric motor) not from the small kinetic energy given the air molecules in the "wind" since these drift velocities are generally small compared to the average speed of molecules in the air. [9] If a force of air is compressed into a cylider via a piston that pushes the air through a small air nossel and propels a.2 gram bb at 300ft/s is that the same amount of kinetic energy as 3.4 gram bbs propelled simarly down a barrel at 237ft/s? The 3.4g bbs are lined up touching each other. [9] The total kinetic energy of a system depends on the inertial frame of reference: it is the sum of the total kinetic energy in a center of momentum frame and the kinetic energy the total mass would have if it were concentrated in the center of mass. [12] It is a form of energy but, unlike many energy forms, it has no mass and so the only energy it has is its kinetic energy, the energy it has by virtue of its motion. [9] While this derivation is only for a constant acceleration, the kinetic energy only depends on the mass and velocity. [11] Notice that kinetic energy is proportional to the mass and to the square of the velocity. [11] The velocity gets into the equation because of the kinetic energy (moving mass has kinetic energy). [9] This equation states that the kinetic energy (E k ) is equal to the integral of the dot product of the velocity ( v ) of a body and the infinitesimal change of the body's momentum ( p ). [12] Now the conservation principle says that the change in the kinetic energy is proportional to the work done one it. [9] The work is equal to the increase in kinetic energy: WFs½ mv 2. [9] The work must increase the energy of the gas and the only way to do that (for a monotonic ideal gas) is to increase the kinetic energy of the molecules. [9]

This means, for example, that an object traveling twice as fast will have four times as much kinetic energy. [12] Like any physical quantity that is a function of velocity, the kinetic energy of an object depends on the relationship between the object and the observer's frame of reference. [12] I and others claim Kinetic Energy is a relative value, as is Velocity, and that the same object will have different Kinetic Energy depending on the Frame Of Reference of the observer. [9] The kinetic energy is the sum of all the force provided over a distance needed to get the brick to a specific velocity. [11] Since they are not infinitely separated, they exert forces on each other and start accelerating toward each other, so each acquires a kinetic energy. [9] If the balloon were rigid, the energy would all go into the kinetic energy of the gas; the result would be that the pressure of the gas would be larger because the molecules would exert more force on the walls when they collide with it. [9]

ANSWER: The large ball, which has much more kinetic energy than the small ball upon impact with the floor, transfers some of its kinetic energy to the small ball. [9] ANSWER: You have only a small error here -- the kinetic energy of the car is about 400,000 J, not kJ, so the required gasoline is only about 0.003 gallons. [9] ANSWER: You do not want to say "how much kinetic energy does it produce" because it has kinetic energy which it then loses when it hits the target. [9]

The expression you give for kinetic energy is only an approximately correct equation at velocities very small with respect to the speed of light. [9] Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. [12] If the cue ball collides with another ball, it will slow down dramatically and the ball it collided with will accelerate to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. [12] Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. [12] This implies that the kinetic energy of the particle must also increase. [9] The reason a bound particle cannot have exactly zero kinetic energy is that it would have to have exactly zero linear momentum, so momentum would be exactly known. [9] The particle is now confined to rebound in one of those two now smaller spaces, thus its de Broglie wavelength is now half of the original, its velocity therefore greater along with its kinetic energy. [9] One of the most important findings is that the temperature of a gas is determined by the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas, so the slower the particles, on average, are moving the colder the gas. [9] In your example the hot teacup is losing its kinetic energy by increasing the temperature of its cooler environment; this is called cooling by conduction. (Convection, currents of air and tea, also plays an important role.) [9] For temperatures below about 60 K, the energies of hydrogen molecules are too low for a collision to bring the rotational state or vibrational state of a molecule from the lowest energy to the second lowest, so the only form of energy is translational kinetic energy, and \(d 3\) or \(C_V 3R/2\) as in a monatomic gas. [13] The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy per molecule, so if the atoms were not moving we would be at absolute zero temperature. [9] Thermal energy is, essentially, kinetic energy of the atoms in the object. [9] The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy it possesses due to its motion. [12]

Afterwards there is less mass but more kinetic energy of the fission products. [9] Even a small mass moving very fast has a lot of kinetic energy. [11] If you let it drop from the unstretched spring position, the mass will have its maximum kinetic energy as it passes throught xd and it will continue going down until it gets to x 2 d where it will be momentarily at rest, then go back up, etc. [9]

The total energy of the system (including kinetic energy, fuel chemical energy, heat energy, etc), will be conserved over time in a given reference frame, regardless of the choice of measurement frame. [12] The kinetic energy of a system at any instant in time is the sum of the kinetic energies of the bodies it contains. [12]

The principle in classical mechanics that E ? mv was first theorized by Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli, who described kinetic energy as the "living force," or vis viva. [12] QUESTION: The question is about the formula for kinetic energy. [9] The atom will, in fact, recoil so that the energy of the photon will be a tiny bit smaller than the energy loss of the atom because the recoiling atom will have a tiny bit of kinetic energy afterwards. [9] All collisions will be completely elastic unless the kinetic energy of some atoms is larger than the minimum energy required to excite such an atom (likely only for extremely hot gases). [9] When the spring atoms come apart, they start a little closer to each other than they would if the spring were not compressed, so they move a little faster when they leave and so the average kinetic energy of all the atoms is a little larger than it would have been for the uncompressed spring. [9]

Ask students to calculate the theoretical velocity, Vt, at the bottom of the swing by first calculating the kinetic energy of the weight at the bottom of the swing. (Note: Remind students to ignore wind resistance and other factors that would cause us to lose energy. [10] Spacecraft use chemical energy to take off and gain considerable kinetic energy to reach orbital velocity. [12]

At a low speed (v<<c), the relativistic kinetic energy may be approximated well by the classical kinetic energy. [12] For a speed of 10km/s the correction to the Newtonian kinetic energy is 0.07 J/kg (on a Newtonian kinetic energy of 50 MJ/kg) and for a speed of 100km/s it is 710 J/kg (on a Newtonian kinetic energy of 5 GJ/kg), etc. [12]

A body that is stationary and not rotating nevertheless has internal energy, which is partly kinetic energy, due to molecular translation, rotation, and vibration, electron translation and spin, and nuclear spin. [12] As you note, the energy carried off will have to come from the electron which then will slow down and eventually run out of energy to radiate away (but this is just its kinetic energy which goes away). [9]

The coldest possible gas (containing no kinetic energy) would be if all the particles were at rest. [9] The kinetic energy of systems of objects, however, may sometimes not be completely removable by simple choice of reference frame. [12] Kinetic energy for single objects is completely frame-dependent (relative). [12] There are several different equations that may be used to calculate the kinetic energy of an object. [12] It is only if you cannot locate a stationary point about which the object is actually rotating that you need to include translational kinetic energy. [9]

Kinetic energy can be best understood by examples that demonstrate how it is transformed to and from other forms of energy. [12] The kinetic energy in the moving cyclist and the bicycle can be converted to other forms. [12] The kinetic energy of a tennis ball in flight is the kinetic energy due to its rotation, plus the kinetic energy due to its translation. [12] In the game of billiards, the player gives kinetic energy to the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. [12] In the head on collision, all kinetic energy is lost and the balls end up at rest, stuck together. [9]

Your error was in not considering that, in "drifiting closer", kinetic energy changes also. [9] Now, if you want to change the kinetic energy of the rocket, you must also push on it. [9]

I'm guessing an electric motor could start the vehicle, and be used intermittently during traffic stops, with the kinetic energy propelling a light-weight auto on stretches road that don't require frequent stops, like highways. [9] Space is not a perfect vacuum and so it can have a temperature which is usually defined as being a measure of the average kinetic energy per molecule. [9] In an inelastic collision, the kinetic energy of the masses is converted into heat. [11] Another possibility would be for the cyclist to apply the brakes, in which case the kinetic energy would be dissipated through friction as heat energy. [12] It becomes apparent at re-entry when the kinetic energy is converted to heat. [12]

A car driving down the road has kinetic energy which means that, to get it moving you must give it that energy. [9] The kinetic energy of flowing water or the wind can be used to move turbines, which in turn can be used to generate electricity. [12]

ANSWER: You are taking your second statement to literally; the use of the word "or" does not imply exclusivity, that is, either or both may contribute to total mechanical energy. [9] In this video lesson, you'll explore how mechanical energy is converted or transferred between forms and objects. [14] This holds true for mechanical energy, which also obeys this law of conservation of energy. [14] This activity shows students the engineering importance of understanding the laws of mechanical energy. [10]

ANSWER: I will ignore any effects from general relativity (gravitational effects) and ingnore the fact that there is an acceleration involved. [9] ANSWER: The tetherball is a particularly tricky example because of the thickness of the pole. (First, ignore friction.) [9]

In the ideal world of introductory physics we usually say: ignore air friction, ignore the weight of the string, assume that at the beginning of the problem the string is straight and the ball is moving in a circle with constant speed. [9] To show the extreme case, ignore air resistance and suppose the large ball makes an elastic collision with the floor and then rebounds to make an elastic collision with the still-descending small ball. [9] Therefore we must solve the differential equation (d v /d t )+0.00079 v 2 0. (I completely ignore gravity because the ball starts with zero velocity in the vertical direction and flies for only a very short time.) [9] I cannot picture the " small air hole that lets air in when you drink", but let's ignore that since air most likely does not go in at the rate that water goes out (or that you want it to go out). [9] The specific heats are really functions of temperature but I ignore that. [9]

The equations will be justified as students experimentally measure the speed of the pendulum and compare theory with reality. [10] It is this theory which leads to the phenomena of time dilation, length contraction, Emc 2, etc. [9] If space time is flexible and every planet, star, etc is resting on it then wouldn't it have to be a continually flat surface? I'm having trouble reconsiling the up, down and in between of space with this theory. [9]

Einstein, after completing this theory in 1917 spent the rest of his life trying to connect gravity to electromagnetism to no avail. [9] We say that no one has yet been able to devise a theory of quantum gravity. [9]

One can extend the mathematic of three or four dimensions to higher dimensions and devise a complete mathematics of an N-dimensional space where N is any number; but is this just mathematics or is there some relation to the real world? Today physicists ponder whether there might be more dimensions to our world than we currently perceive and this leads to new theories of nature like string theory. [9] To ask how this happens is to ask how the theory of general relativity leads to this. [9] This is one of (unexpected) cornerstones of the theory of special relativity. [9] This is predicted by the theory of general relativity and is one of the conerstone tests of that theory. [9] And, in relativity there are never " fundamentally irreconcilable observations that are made from different frames of reference" or else it would not be an acceptable theory of physics. [9] The theory which predicts this is called general relativity. [9]

Classical gravitational theory, i.e. Newton's, was enormously successful for centuries. [9] Such a theory would have a gravitational field which is quantized, and thus there would be a quantum of the field called a graviton. [9]

Joseph Proust's law of definite proportions and John Dalton's atomic theory branched from the discoveries of Antoine Lavoisier. [8] As such entropy is a key measure in information theory where it quantifies the uncertainty involved in predicting the value of a random variable. 10 The Second Law states that whenever energy is converted from one form to another some of the energy becomes low-level heat. [17]

Photons (light) hit the atomic particles continuously to compress particles inside atoms and thus store energy in them similar to a compression spring in the form of nuclear energy!So you can extract that energy to get required electrical power! So non-perpetual magnetic engines are possible, but some people can cheat by claiming to invent perpetual machines. [20] The electrons move by hopping from one atom to another, assuming new positions in the "potential" energy map as they do so. [26] He thought potentials were akin to "mysticism", because "everybody knows that fields contain mass, and mass cannot be created from apparently nothing, which is what potentials are, both literally and mathematically; they are an accumulation or reservoir of energy. [20] An open dissipative system needs to maintain an exchange of energy and resources with the environment in order to be able to continuously renew itself. 20 For dissipative systems to sustain their growth, they must not only increase their negentropic potential, but they must also eliminate the positive entropy that naturally accumulates over time as systems are trying to sustain themselves. [17] The calculation of energy in electrical systems depends on the amount of current flowing through a conductor (I) in amperes, as well as on the electrical potential, or voltage (V), driving the current, in volts. [15] For a given material there's a map, called the potential (as in "potential energy"), that tells you the energy. [26]

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to inform the world that I have cracked a formula where mass can use the influence of gravity to produce perpetual turning energy. [20] "95 percent working Gravity engines work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward." [20] If you substract total amplified Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines do not violate Laws of energy conservation and hence Gravity engines are Not Perpetual. [20] What happens is very similar to this equation: "Impulsive gravitational energy absorbed and used by lightweight small ball from the heavy ball due to gravitational amplification plus standard gravity (9.8); as output electricity (converted) equals small loss of big ball due to impulse resistance/back reactance plus energy equivalent to go against standard gravity plus fictional energy loss plus impulsive energy applied." [20] This means, without any considerable reduction of speed of the bigger ball travelling towards the ground, the smaller balls get extra energy due to gravitational amplification. [20]

A non-equilibrium state needs for its description time and space-dependent state variables, because of exchanges of mass and energy between the system and its surroundings. [17] The nucleonic force is not exclusive but in the interaction between two nucleons the energy associated with the formation of a spin pair is many times larger than that involved in their interaction through the nucleonic force. [19]

An object in motion possesses its energy of movement, which is equivalent to the work that would be required to bring it to rest. [15] Together with Jerison, Douglas Arnold of the University of Minnesota and Guy David of the University of Paris-South, they are now finishing work on a paper that describes a new version of the landscape function -- which, in simple terms, is the reciprocal of the original one -- that exactly predicts where electrons will localize and at what energy level. [26] They light up when electrons in a semiconducting material, having started out in a position of higher energy, get trapped (or "localize") in a position of lower energy and emit the difference as a photon of light. [26] As for the electrons themselves, when they move from positions of higher energy to positions of lower energy, under the right circumstances they emit the difference as a photon of light. [26] If they localize in the presence of a hole, the energy difference is emitted as a photon of light; if they localize without a hole, the energy difference is emitted as a phonon of heat and the whole effort is for naught. [26] For thermogenesis of BA, a cell with such a small size has limited sources for energy extraction or delivery compared with the amplitudes of heat (d Q ) and work (d W ). [16] Energy is the capacity for doing work, and it is also expressed in joules. [15] The "lost? energy is still energy but is no longer high-level energy that can be used for work, such as moving things or fuelling metabolic processes in plants and animals. [17] Passive Systems: Hans Coler's devices, Thomas Trawoeger's pyramid, the discoveries of Antoine Bovis, James Brock's experiments, Peter Grandic's patent, Les Brown's pyramid information, Joseph Cater's explanation of how all pyramids work, Pier Ighina's passive energy devices, the Joe Cell, Bill Williams' design and recent analytical advances, the Italian B.A.C. coil, co-ax cable electrets and the devices of Mr Keshe. [20] Hi, I am in the alternative energy business and we are very much interested in such innovations if it really work. [20]

This mass deficit when expressed in energy units through the Einstein formula Emc² is called the binding energy of the nucleus. [19] This random change of composition means energies of electrons in different regions are different," said Claude Weisbuch, a leading figure in semiconductor physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and co-recipient (with James Speck, also of UCSB) of a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to use the landscape function to develop better green LEDs. [26] The moment you start withdrawing energy the perpetual like motion of electrons tend to stop. [20] Just like the convection of water, biological organisms are also self-organizing dissipative structures, they take in and give off energy to and from the environment in order to sustain life processes and in doing so function at a state of nonequilibrium. [17] In the case of externalities, unaccounted-for environmental impacts (like those of gasoline, as discussed above) result in artificially low energy costs. [27]

One of the fundamental laws of the universe is that energy is neither created nor destroyed -- it only changes forms. [15] The first law tells us about the flow of energy within any physical system and that we can trace its transformation from one form to another throughout the system. [17] The first law in its generalized sense is a statement of the conservation of energy and matter. [17] The world would not operate if this fundamental law (the conservation of energy) of physics was not upheld. [20]

Most systems found in nature or considered in engineering are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. 14 They are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously subject to fluctuations of matter and energy to and from other systems. [17] This implies that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant over time. [17] Multiplying these two parameters gives the power of the electricity (P) in watts, and multiplying P by the time during which the electricity flows (t) in seconds gives the amount of electrical energy in the system, in joules. [15] These equal two times the energy for the rotation that the bottom ball represents to counter the rotation. [20] If the ball weighs 60,000 lbs, the energy in the spring can equal 59,999 lbs. [20] This generator first is an energy generator with the weight ball descending down the bottom cylinder, then when the ball arrives at the bottom, the generator ceases to exist and the whole machine becomes an over-weighted wheel. [20]

Put energy into a system and that system will respond, this is the nature of a thermodynamic driving force. [17] D U ? 0 suggests that the increased mitochondrial or cellular temperatures must be balanced and compensated by selected intra-mitochondrial or intracellular energy changes, such as exergonic reactions of NADH (52.6 kcal/mol) and FADH 2 (43.4 kcal/mol), which were also experimentally supported by NADH and FADH 2 consumption during BA thermogenesis (Xie et al. 2017b ). [16] It is acceptable to claim that the change in cellular internal energy (d U ) can be neglected. [16] Energy generation, distribution, and use result in carbon emissions, one of the largest contributors to global climate change. [27]   3, the change in cellular internal energy is claimed to be negligible. [16]

They're much better at efficiently converting energy into light than conventional bulbs. [26] Do you know why? Because the moment you start drawing energy out of it the motion will come to a stop. The reason is straightforward since you are no giving any energy input hence perpetual motion will follow a delicate balance of input energy being equal to zero output energy. [20] The moment someone claims that WE WILL HAVE PERPETUAL ENERGY BY PERPETUAL MOTION I simply read the rest with a pinch of salt. [20]

Fuel-less Engines: The energy in air, Bob Teal's compressed air engine, Scott Robertson's thoughts on putting low-pressure air into a tank of high-pressure air, the Leroy Rogers compressed-air vehicle engine adaption, the Vortex Tube, the Eber Van Valkinberg compressed fluids engine, the Clem engine, the Josef Papp engine, the Robert Britt engine, the Michael Eskeli turbines, the James Hardy water-jet generator and the Cahill / Scott heat pump system. [20] Before that kindly overcome the loss of energy due to inertia. friction traction. air drag. and a few more and then draw energy put of it without the system slowing down and without any type of energy input. [20]

Maybe gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by the mass-energy of stuff within it plus the energy of space itself. [18] You seriously want to tap infinite energy? Then stop looking at gravity and look towards zero point energy. [20]

These thin interior layers are evocatively called a "quantum well" -- when electrons fall in, they localize at lower energy levels. [26] In order to understand how these formulas are expressions of the same thing, it's important to first understand what physicists mean when they talk about energy. [15] Energy withdrawal will mean output energy will not be zero anymore and soon the system will halt. [20]

If the incremental binding energy of neutrons decreases as the number of neutrons in the nuclide increases then it is evidence that the interaction of a neutron and another neutron is due to repulsion. [19] If the incremental binding energy of neutrons increases as the number of protons in the nuclide increases then that is evidence that a neutron and a proton are attracted to each other through the nucleonic force. [19]

The most important result of the analysis of incremental binding energy is that like nucleons repel each other and unlike attract. [19] The expression for the energy of a photon is thus E(p) h. [15] German physicist Max Planck determined that the energy of a photon is proportional the frequency (f) with which it vibrates, and he calculated the constant of proportionality (h), which is called Planck's constant in his honor. [15]

It is a way to push and pull on a material to alter its state and structure with any type of energy. [17] It is this continual flux of energy, into and out of a dissipative structure, which leads towards self-organization and ultimately the ability to function at a state of nonequilibrium. [17] Equilibrium thermodynamics, as a subject in physics, considers macroscopic bodies of matter and energy in states of internal thermodynamic equilibrium. 5 Thermodynamic equilibrium is characterized by an absence of the flow of matter or energy. [17]

It posits that energy can never be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form into another. [17] The conversion of energy from one form to another is never 100 percent efficient. [17] Some of them can go on extracting nuclear energy by fusing three helium nuclei to form one carbon nucleus. [18]

Do you honestly believe that science is 100% correct about all of the "laws" of physics? Do you think we can never discovery a way to get more energy out than we put in under any circumstances? Are we stuck with burning something as fuel, solar, wind, and hydro? I do not believe that! Do you? I know that a better way will be found. [20] Putting energy into a moving system to gain momentum is insane. [20]   19 ) and calculations suggest that BA thermogenesis relies on hydrogen and energy sources such as glucose, water, fatty acid, NADH, and FADH 2. [16] Just as the input and dissipation of energy within the water in the pan enabled the formation of the non-equilibrium pattern of convection cells, it is the constant input and dissipation of energy that enables biological creatures to exist far from equilibrium. [17] The sun provided the energy to evaporate the water (which then falls as rain) that we extract hydroelectricity from. [20]

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES(27 source documents arranged by frequency of occurrence in the above report)

1. (466) Ask the Physicist!

2. (40) Kinetic energy - New World Encyclopedia

3. (30) 7.4 Conservative Forces and Potential Energy | Texas Gateway

4. (30) potential energy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

5. (30) Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

6. (26) [2.0] Newton's Three Laws Of Motion

7. (25) The Gravity Engine: How to Build It With a Pinwheel

8. (21) Application and Practice Questions

9. (20) Swinging Pendulum (for High School) - Activity - TeachEngineering

10. (19) Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics Complexity Labs

11. (13) AP Physics 1: Work, Energy, & Power - Videos & Lessons | Study.com

12. (13) kinetic energy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

13. (10) What Is the Formula for Energy? | Sciencing

14. (9) Mathematical Wave Puzzle Shines Light on the Physics of Electrons - Scientific American

15. (8) Theoretical model and characteristics of mitochondrial thermogenesis

16. (8) What holds the nucleus of an atom together?

17. (5) Work-Energy Theorem | Boundless Physics

18. (5) Why is there more potential energy at the top of a hill? - Quora

19. (4) Energy - Behavior, Decision and Policy Working Group - Carnegie Mellon University

20. (3) 2.3: Heat Capacity and Equipartition of Energy - Physics LibreTexts

21. (3) General Relativity - The Physics Hypertextbook

22. (3) Why does the work-energy theory ignores potential energy? | Socratic

23. (2) Non-conservative work energy theorem and potential energy | Physics Forums

24. (2) Trump?s Energy Secretary to Congress: Please ignore my boss - Axios

25. (2) American Economic Association

26. (1) newtonian mechanics - Why do we ignore normal forces when applying conservation of energy to roller coasters? - Physics Stack Exchange

27. (1) ISAT 100 Exam 1 MH Connect Flashcards | Quizlet

s2Member®
Skip to toolbar