The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Why is energy observer dependent?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Why is energy observer dependent?

  • 37 Replies
  • 3889 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    6.5%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Why is energy observer dependent?
« on: 23/06/2018 14:37:44 »
I have come across this statement a few times. I do not doubt it but I do not understand it.

Am I perhaps a bit slow?Maybe it is not too hard to understand.

Is it the same as saying  that energy is not an absolute quantity? We cannot attribute a clear value for the energy of any given system?
« Last Edit: 23/06/2018 14:39:52 by geordief »
Logged
 



Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5273
  • Activity:
    11%
  • Thanked: 439 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #1 on: 23/06/2018 15:30:59 »
If you are looking at potential energy it depends where you measure from. A weight on top of a tall building will have greater potential energy relative to you if you are on the ground compared to your being on a floor midway.
If your car is moving at 10mph and a car rams you from behind at 30mph the kinetic energy transferred is greater than if you were moving at 20mph.
So energy is relative, but if you define the system properly and are clear about the reference frames you can account for the energy exchanged and understand the conservation rules.
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    6.5%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #2 on: 23/06/2018 16:09:25 »
Quote from: Colin2B on 23/06/2018 15:30:59
If you are looking at potential energy it depends where you measure from. A weight on top of a tall building will have greater potential energy relative to you if you are on the ground compared to your being on a floor midway.
If your car is moving at 10mph and a car rams you from behind at 30mph the kinetic energy transferred is greater than if you were moving at 20mph.
So energy is relative, but if you define the system properly and are clear about the reference frames you can account for the energy exchanged and understand the conservation rules.
Perhaps I was falling into the (engrained) assumption that energy is a thing rather than a property?

If it is a property ,what is it a property of ? A system ? An object?
Logged
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28522
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #3 on: 23/06/2018 18:17:14 »
You could think of it this way, and no, it's not 'slow' to ask the right questions, or if it is?
Heck, let's be 'slow' for once, heh.

I'm always slow, that's the curse I live under :)
And it's ok being slow, I think?

'At rest' there is a defined magnitude/energy whatever, without it you will have to look to at what speed/mass etc you define something else, relative yourself. Photons/light are defined to never be 'at rest', but the way I naively look at it myself I allow for the possibility of two 'photons' propagating aside each other, and then define them as being 'at rest' with each other
======================

That is naturally from a view of propagation. which is the simpler one presumably. Without a propagation every 'photon' is equivalent too, but the theoretical proof becomes circumstantial. It's different and I would need to think about that one some more.
=

Eh, every photon of a same energy, disregarding the observer, that should mean :)
It's tricky though, as it might imply that there is a 'background' of sorts, with 'definite values'

So maybe I need to think more about that one
« Last Edit: 23/06/2018 18:34:30 by yor_on »
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28522
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #4 on: 23/06/2018 18:41:07 »
Energy is a property of something measurable, be it proper mass or not. A 'coin  of exchange' as JP called it.
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 



Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    6.5%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #5 on: 23/06/2018 21:08:03 »
Quote from: yor_on on 23/06/2018 18:17:14
And it's ok being slow, I think?
For 50 years I took that description as a qualified compliment but now I am starting to see it as "just slow"
 :(
Logged
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #6 on: 23/06/2018 22:58:55 »
Quote from: Yor_on
Photons/light are defined to never be 'at rest', but the way I naively look at it myself I allow for the possibility of two 'photons' propagating aside each other, and then define them as being 'at rest' with each other

Wouldn’t this be defining the photon frame as an inertial frame?
My understanding is that it is not, so velocities with respect to it cannot be measured.
Logged
There never was nothing.
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1384
  • Activity:
    2%
  • Thanked: 55 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #7 on: 23/06/2018 23:31:40 »
There is actually a minimum energy for a system, which is the total energy measured in the centre of mass frame.

OK, you probably don't know what that means. For simplicity, let's just take kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is a square law, so a vehicle going twice as fast, has four times the energy, not just twice.

i.e. Kn = 0.5 * Mn * Vn^2

Where Kn is the kinetic energy of a body, Mn is the mass of that body and Vn is the speed of that body.

So if you add up all the Kn's you can get the total kinetic energy.

So let's say for the sake of argument you want to calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars on Earth.

The problem is that the velocities depend on what you're measuring the speed relative to - is the centre of the Earth? The centre of the sun? The centre of the galaxy? They're all moving differently and all of these give you WILDLY different answers.

But if you pick the centre of mass of all the cars for the reference point- it turns out that that's the minimum kinetic energy. It also turns out that you can define the potential energy independent of the frame of reference that you're calculating it in, so only the kinetic energy matters much.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2018 23:37:31 by wolfekeeper »
Logged
 

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    6.5%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #8 on: 24/06/2018 00:39:38 »
Quote from: wolfekeeper on 23/06/2018 23:31:40
There is actually a minimum energy for a system, which is the total energy measured in the centre of mass frame.

OK, you probably don't know what that means. For simplicity, let's just take kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is a square law, so a vehicle going twice as fast, has four times the energy, not just twice.

i.e. Kn = 0.5 * Mn * Vn^2

Where Kn is the kinetic energy of a body, Mn is the mass of that body and Vn is the speed of that body.

So if you add up all the Kn's you can get the total kinetic energy.

So let's say for the sake of argument you want to calculate the total kinetic energy of all the cars on Earth.

The problem is that the velocities depend on what you're measuring the speed relative to - is the centre of the Earth? The centre of the sun? The centre of the galaxy? They're all moving differently and all of these give you WILDLY different answers.

But if you pick the centre of mass of all the cars for the reference point- it turns out that that's the minimum kinetic energy. It also turns out that you can define the potential energy independent of the frame of reference that you're calculating it in, so only the kinetic energy matters much.
So ,when you measure  and sum all the velocities in the FOR of the centre of mass do you count velocities approaching that centre as negative wrt velocities  in the opposite direction?

If you do  what would it imply if the sum total (the integral?) was zero?
Logged
 



Offline wolfekeeper

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1384
  • Activity:
    2%
  • Thanked: 55 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #9 on: 24/06/2018 03:07:05 »
The centre of mass reference frame has the property that the sum of the momentums is zero. So if the vector sum of the momentums is zero, relative to any other frame (such as that of the Earth) then you can use that other frame instead (which is normally more convenient). So if the masses are all the same and the velocities are all equal and opposite relative to the Earth, then you can just use the Earth frame instead.

The other thing that's worth knowing is that it turns out that you can convert from the Centre of Mass frame (i.e. the zero momentum frame) to any other frame really easily by adding on half the square of the relative frame speed times the total mass.

So for example if you calculate some total energy, say 1MJ, for four cars each weighing a tonne- for simplicity, let's say it's symmetrical relative to the Earth frame, and you want to calculate it instead relative to the Sun's frame, the Earth moves at ~30km/s, so you add on 0.5 * (4 * 1000) * 30000^2 = 1.8TJ  and then you just add on the original 1 MJ = ~1.8TJ (which is quite a big number- but the Earth moves very, very fast!)

FYI it's not actually terribly hard to prove this, you mostly just substitute the Vn' = Vn+Vf in the sum of kinetic energies equation above and expand it and sum it and rearrange it a bit.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2018 03:36:07 by wolfekeeper »
Logged
 

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    6.5%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #10 on: 24/06/2018 10:57:45 »
Quote from: wolfekeeper on 24/06/2018 03:07:05
The centre of mass reference frame has the property that the sum of the momentums is zero. So if the vector sum of the momentums is zero, relative to any other frame (such as that of the Earth) then you can use that other frame instead (which is normally more convenient). So if the masses are all the same and the velocities are all equal and opposite relative to the Earth, then you can just use the Earth frame instead.

The other thing that's worth knowing is that it turns out that you can convert from the Centre of Mass frame (i.e. the zero momentum frame) to any other frame really easily by adding on half the square of the relative frame speed times the total mass.

So for example if you calculate some total energy, say 1MJ, for four cars each weighing a tonne- for simplicity, let's say it's symmetrical relative to the Earth frame, and you want to calculate it instead relative to the Sun's frame, the Earth moves at ~30km/s, so you add on 0.5 * (4 * 1000) * 30000^2 = 1.8TJ  and then you just add on the original 1 MJ = ~1.8TJ (which is quite a big number- but the Earth moves very, very fast!)

FYI it's not actually terribly hard to prove this, you mostly just substitute the Vn' = Vn+Vf in the sum of kinetic energies equation above and expand it and sum it and rearrange it a bit.
So what happens if we apply that to  the universe as a whole ? Is it possible that every point in the Universe  would measure all the vectors of all the  momentums ** as summing to zero?(since the centre is everywhere it seems)

** just a thought experiment I guess.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #11 on: 24/06/2018 11:37:59 »
Rest energy is defined as E = mc2 and kinetic energy is defined as K = (1/2)mv2. A value for total energy should then be T = m(c2+(1/2)v2). The other component is then gravitational potential energy. While rest energy does not have a component that depends on motion, the other two do have that dependence. If we compose a formula that contains all three we get E = m(c2+(1/2)v2+u2). Here u is the gravitational potential. Looked at this way rest mass is affected by gravitational potential which then affects inertial resistance to motion. This cannot be true. Since weight increases in a stronger gravitational field. If the above were true the opposite would happen. Therefore we have two distinct type of energy which cannot be mixed together. Those energies defined at rest and those energies defined in motion. This means that either rest energy or kinetic energy must contribute to the total energy of the universe but not both. Since negative mass is not as observed property of any object in the universe this means it can only be kinetic and potential energy that are considered. Therefore it is the entropy of the universe that attention is mainly focussed upon.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2018 12:58:48 by jeffreyH »
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    6.5%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #12 on: 24/06/2018 11:52:12 »
I have never understood "rest energy" (perhaps above my pay grade).

Is "rest energy" perhaps always calculated in its own FOR?
Logged
 



Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #13 on: 24/06/2018 13:12:14 »
Quote from: geordief on 24/06/2018 11:52:12
I have never understood "rest energy" (perhaps above my pay grade).

Is "rest energy" perhaps always calculated in its own FOR?

My definition for kinetic energy above was wrong and I have just corrected it. If we use rest mass to derive an energy value then we get rest energy. A mass in motion has an implicit relationship with the Lorentz factor due to special relativity. This is also known as relativistic gamma. It implies an increase in mass. This resulted in the concept of relativistic mass. Since including rest, kinetic and gravitational potential energies in one formula affected rest mass, does applying the Lorentz factor have this effect? In this case resulting in an increasing mass term. If this was wrong in the earlier case, how can it be right now? Except that we are not including rest energy in this formula. We have what is known as a Lagrangian. This states that L = T - U. Where T is the kinetic energy of the system and U is its potential energy. Neither term involves the speed of light. Simply an actual or potential velocity.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2018 13:24:14 by jeffreyH »
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3903
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #14 on: 24/06/2018 13:12:51 »
Quote from: geordief on 24/06/2018 11:52:12
I have never understood "rest energy" (perhaps above my pay grade).

Is "rest energy" perhaps always calculated in its own FOR?
I created this webpage for this kind of thread: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm

All rest energy means is the amount of energy associated with a body at rest due to its mass-energy.
Logged
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3903
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #15 on: 24/06/2018 13:15:33 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
This states that L = V + U.
Correction. L = T - V, where T = Kinetic energy and V = Potential energy. If the potential is a velocity dependent one then the letter U is used. This is particularly important in electrodynamics.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2018 13:23:42 by PmbPhy »
Logged
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #16 on: 24/06/2018 13:20:05 »
Thanks Pete. My memory let me down.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 



Offline wolfekeeper

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1384
  • Activity:
    2%
  • Thanked: 55 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #17 on: 24/06/2018 14:32:40 »
Quote from: geordief on 24/06/2018 10:57:45
So what happens if we apply that to  the universe as a whole ? Is it possible that every point in the Universe  would measure all the vectors of all the  momentums ** as summing to zero?(since the centre is everywhere it seems)

** just a thought experiment I guess.
Yes, there is a centre of mass frame of the universe (it's not physically special in terms of Relativity though), which minimises the kinetic energy, and would have been the motion of the Big Bang.

It's also thought that the total energy of the universe is probably zero in that reference frame-  gravitational potential energy is negative, and kinetic and mass energy is positive. They appear to cancel out to within measurable accuracy (which isn't very highly accurate, but still, it could make sense that it would be zero.) If so, it costs no energy to make a universe!
« Last Edit: 24/06/2018 14:51:38 by wolfekeeper »
Logged
 

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    6.5%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #18 on: 24/06/2018 14:58:27 »
Quote from: wolfekeeper on 24/06/2018 14:32:40

Yes, there is a centre of mass frame of the universe (it's not physically special in terms of Relativity though), which minimises the kinetic energy, and would have been the motion of the Big Bang.



Are you confident about that? I have just posted the question elsewhere on the internet as I see the question has come up on other forums and ,at first glance seems to have been answered in the negative.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2018 15:02:31 by geordief »
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Why is energy observer dependent?
« Reply #19 on: 24/06/2018 16:03:11 »
If everything were heading towards a single point then there would be a global increase in kinetic energy over time. Since the gravitational potential would be decreasing over time. This would still conserve the overall energy.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

What are "energy" and "work" ?

Started by The ChampBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 108
Views: 54523
Last post 31/12/2018 20:54:40
by yor_on
Can matter in a vacuum create dark energy and dark matter effects?

Started by GoscienceBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 1
Views: 8741
Last post 10/05/2011 23:37:24
by yor_on
What is Kirlian photography and Kirlian Energy?

Started by neilepBoard General Science

Replies: 2
Views: 7404
Last post 27/04/2007 15:02:27
by Karen W.
What really is dark energy and dark matter?

Started by Diogo_Afonso_LeitaoBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 5
Views: 6487
Last post 08/09/2017 12:01:01
by puppypower
What are dark matter and dark energy?

Started by ijazBoard General Science

Replies: 5
Views: 6955
Last post 21/01/2016 12:43:52
by alysdexia
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.306 seconds with 83 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.