Kinetic Energy EXPLAINED in 5 Levels - Beginner to Advanced (Classical Physics by Parth G)

[@ParthGChannel]

Hi everyone, thanks for watching! I've now made a similar video about Potential Energy (5 levels of difficulty) - check it out here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6aXaZ-cf72ardk And as always, let me know what topics you'd like me to cover in future videos :)

[@YgorRichard]

Might you talk about Quantus Mechanics?

[@jainamsavla6253]

Can u do the 5 level depth video for light ? As in matter and wave nature together and also the electromagnetic radiation nature of light and also the photon nature

[@polimedy6589]

Hi 🇮🇳

[@ParthGChannel]

@@YgorRichard thanks for your comment! I have a playlist on videos about Quantum Mechanics too - in fact that's what I talk about the most on here! :D kzbin.info/aero/PLOlz9q28K2e4Yn2ZqbYI__dYqw5nQ9DST

[@sudhanshuranjan6928]

I was having some problems in atomic structure , but after watching some of your videos like the one in which you talked about quantum numbers , and the Pauli exclusion theorem one ,I was able to connect things ,really thankyou sir , and can you make a video which could make us visualize or picturize an atom in some deapth , it would be really helpful 😃

[@amshumansharma5391]

keep up the good work homey and yes totally would like more of 5 level vids

[@orionxtc1119]

homey?

[@TheWalkingSteakhouse]

It's actually insane how good you are at explaining complex topics. I never feel "burned out" from watching your videos

[@ParthGChannel]

Thank you for the kind words!

[@studypurposeonly69]

Me, controlling my urge to crack a joke on complex numbers

[@josip_giuseppe]

@@ParthGChannel Kinetic energy was defined long before the theory of relativity. It is defined from energy conservation law. Using definition of work W we obtain: W= ∫ F•dr =∫m•a•dr = m∫ (dv/dt)•dr= m•∫ (dr/dt)•dv=∫ m•v•dv = Δ(1/2•m• v²)=ΔK Also potential is defined from work: W=∫ F•dr=-∫ (dU/dr)•dr=-∫ dU=-ΔU. So ΔK+ΔU=W-W=0 energy conservation law only applies for conservative forces in which F=-dU/dr. For example gravity potential energy: ΔU=-∫m•a•dr=-∫m•g•dr=-Δ(m•g•h)=-ΔK. Student of physics level.

[@MaxxTosh]

I’d kinda like “five levels of math used in physics” Could go down basic arithmetic, trigonometry, basic calculus, vector calculus, then higher level maths that are way beyond me

[@Paramecium13]

Geometric Algebra. Learn it. Use it. Love it.

[@mastershooter64]

@@Paramecium13 Hell yeah! Geometric algebra is awesome!

[@chrisallen9509]

This is a great idea albeit it’s a bit too broad. Different areas of physics at the highest level require totally different branches of math! Someone who’s in geophysics for example would be an expert and PDEs and applied mathematics in general, while an astronomer using machine learning to classify galaxies would be an expert in statistics, data analysis, and linear algebra. So different! The baseline of the core classes is the same I suppose, you just specialize later on.

[@massipiero2974]

@@Paramecium13 never heard of geometric algebra, only algebraic geometry. Can you please recommend me a book?

[@Paramecium13]

@@massipiero2974 personally, I read Matrix 'Gateway to Geometric Algebra, Spacetime and Spinors'. I'd also recommend the works of David Hestenes, which includes some articles he's published.

[@sadikmahmud8348]

I would very much like 5 levels of voltage.That shit's crazy

[@arnavrawat9864]

seconded. Also potentials

[@petermeter4304]

Isn't voltage just the difference of 2 different potentials though? With an arbitrary point chosen as a reference potential?

[@arnavrawat9864]

@@petermeter4304 yeah but you can dive into different stuff with voltage and potentials. Like engineering and kirchoffs law with voltage Wherease potentials are more quantum physicsy

[@chrisallen9509]

Level 1: Voltage is just the potential difference between two points, defined as the work done to move a charge between the two points. That is, Voltage is the path integral of E along some countour often denoted gamma. Level 2: Voltage is an example of what’s called a potential, specifically what we call a scalar potential. That is, it is a scalar field such that the physical electric field is unique up to the gradient of the scalar potential plus a constant. Voltage, although a scalar potential, isn’t the only type of potential. Other types of potentials include vector valued potentials. For example, the magnetic field is unique up to the curl of a vector field potential plus the gradient of a scalar field. The gradient of the scalar field and other constant can be arbitrary, and picking values for these quantities is called gauge theory. While it is a classical idea, it also shows up in quantum mechanics, specifically quantum field theory, where different symmetry properties are akin to picking your gauge in classical electromagnetism. Level 3: Voltage is only really valid in the static field approximation, as we can only define a scalar potential in the countour integral of the electric field over some path is zero. However, we can modify our definition of voltage for one which is valid even when this integral, or otherwise put the curl of the electric field is nonzero. With this additional time dependence, we also need to account for the propagation delay of the field due to the finite speed of light, called the retarded time. In order to prescribe the physical electric and magnetic field from time dependent scalar and vector potentials, we use the theorem that any well behaved field can be decomposed into solenoidal and Polaroidial pieces, also called the Helmholtz theorem. From the potential formulation, we get the physical fields in electrodynamics, called the Jefimenko equations. Level 4: The idea that the Laplacian of your voltage or scalar potential is proportional to your charge density in electrostatics is no accident. In elementary Newtonian mechanics, we may also define a scalar valued potential field analogous to the voltage scalar field in electrostatics. For it too, it’s laplacian is proportional to mass density, and from first year calculus that 2nd derivatives are related to curvature. However, what is the physical intuition behind curvature here? This is actually crucial for general relativity, where from the elementary idea of voltage from electrostatics, this becomes the time piece of what’s called the metric tensor field. The information contained in the curvature of the metric tensor field can be found under the principle of general covariance, where we refine what we mean by derivative such that it is covariant. The laplacian of the time piece of the metric tensor then becomes two covariant derivatives of the metric, a physical quantity called the Riemman curvature tensor. This is a matrix with 256 components telling you how curved a surface is. From this quantity, we can eliminate certain redundant pieces of information in the tensor to construct the Ricci tensor. By requiring that this coordinate dependent derivative or covariant derivative vanishes, we can construct a quantity with the Ricci tensor which vanishes, specifically the Ricci tensor minus one half times the metric tensor times the Ricci scalar, which is a doubly contracted Riemman tensor. A priori, we know that curvature of the manifold is related to its mass-energy content, expressed via the energy momentum tensor which is also covariantly conserved. By equating this quantities by requiring they are covariantly conserved, and requiring that in the weak field limit of the fields we get Newtonian Mechanics, we can derive the field equations of general relativity, all inherently based upon the idea of a voltage or scalar potential in classical electromagnetism. Level 5: ???

[@arnavrawat9864]

He did it. The madlad did it, there's a video on potentials out

[@sholinwright6621]

I’d love to see the symmetry vs conservation topic presented this way. I wished there was a simplified scenario where conservation of energy could follow from a given symmetry.

[@ShikifuyinYT]

Level 6 : Energy is the conserved quantity associated to time-translation invariance. Very much like Momentum is associated to space-translation invariance. Those invariances are always there for a given system : You get the same results from doing the exact same experiment today or tomorrow (time translation), and likewise you get the same resultsfrom doing the exact same experiment in Paris or London (space translation). Note here that by "exact same experiment" I mean you are able to reproduce exactly all conditions releveant to the experiment about the system and its environment. If you want to learn more details, lookup about Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics and Noether's Theorem. Cheers !

[@lattice737]

More of these! This was an excellent gauge of my own level of understanding as an undergrad who is generally unsure of "where" I am!

[@rikthecuber]

I also got a lot of help. By the way I am a high schooler. I knew 1st 3 levels and the rotational part of level 5 in detail. Could you tell me how much does one learn in undergrad?

[@lattice737]

@@rikthecuber In my experience, these levels are all still in the scope of undergrad, but there will be additional detail: you will learn some more problem-solving techniques, ways to reframe problems or express them differently, and how to view models as a set of working assumptions rather than absolute laws

[@jorex6816]

I always liked the mathematical explanation of why the 1/2 factor occurs in this formula when you calculate the line integral ∫ F • dr

[@josip_giuseppe]

Kinetic energy was defined long before the theory of relativity. It is defined from energy conservation law. Using definition of work W we obtain: W= ∫ F•dr =∫m•a•dr = m∫ (dv/dt)•dr= m•∫ (dr/dt)•dv=∫ m•v•dv = Δ(1/2•m• v²)=ΔK Also potential is defined from work: W=∫ F•dr=-∫ (dU/dr)•dr=-∫ dU=-ΔU. So ΔK+ΔU=W-W=0 energy conservation law only applies for conservative forces in which F=-dU/dr. For example gravity potential energy: ΔU=-∫m•a•dr=-∫m•g•dr=-Δ(m•g•h)=-ΔK.

[@vs906]

Bro you speak so concisely and clearly about KE - a mark of a high level understanding. An important idea that I didn't think about is the idea from level 1 that energy is a number that allow description of what an object is doing or will do. I didn't ever really think about this, I just took the formulae and applied them using conservation of energy. Thank you for giving me this new understanding.

[@MaximQuantum]

This video was amazing! It's basically a video introduction to roughly everything about kinetic energy, and even its formulas, yet explained so simply and teaching so many, so many new things! I'd love to see more of these!!!

[@TH3BL4CKH4WK]

I definitely enjoyed the 5 levels video. Please keep using this structure. It really helps build an intuition for the concepts from low to high level.

[@randymartin9040]

I'm in love with the way you explain things. It's so buttery and easy to digest. Thanks for the great vids!

[@yatinannam7]

I am still 15 yrs old and I understood QUANTUM MECHANICS by watching ur videos Love from INDIA

[@MuhammadAli-lg5kz]

Parth love you, you are making great videos. Keep up making.

[@bernardputersznit64]

love your 5 levels explanatory methodology here and elsewhere - it's a brilliant way to seamlessly develop a student's understanding - please do keep these coming Parth

[@soulintent4129]

This video was really lot of fun, i hope you do more of these, i suggest you do a video about the notion of dimension in different levels of difficulty, would be interesting, it s done before but i wanna see you do it your own way

[@martifingers]

Just exactly what I needed. Excellent format and exceptionally clear.

[@Artham-x5o]

Thankyou for solving all of my doubts !!! ❤❤

[@skepticsapiens4149]

I would say just one thing - Never stop making these videos.

[@ZsoltCseresznye]

Hi Parth G, About the different Reference Frames, at 5:43 you say: "What really matter is how this energy changes" -- I like this approach, but I'd need a littlebit more explanation, for example: If a 1000kgs car goes with 10 m/s then if it wants to accelerate by 10 m/s to reach the speed 20 m/s, it needs 150 kj energy to speed up, because this is the kinetic energy change it have to deal with. If the same car wants to accelerate from 0 m/s to 10 m/s, it needs only 50 kj, because the change in kinetic energy from 0 to 10 m/s is less in this case, since the square of the speed in smaller absolute values matter less, than in bigger absolute values. And here is the seemingly problematic contradiction with different frame of references. In the first scenario, if we are sitting in another car and go paralelly with the same speed as the first car, 10 m/s, then from our point of view the first car needs to consume only 50 kj energy, since from our reference it accelerates from 0 to 10 m/s. Can you please describe this seemingly contradicting energy change differences in an intuitive way? Thank you

[@ShikifuyinYT]

This is a very good point, which require introducing a bit more details. The change in kinetic energy in a given reference frame is the same at first order is a more precise statement : you actually take the derivative of the kinetic energy with respect to the change in speed (which you should note gives the formula for the momentum, this is why we rather use momentum than speed. Momentum is a conserved quantity, not speed.) This is only true for an infinitesimal change in speed which happen in an infinitesimal amount of time. Indeed, you will not be able to change speed instantly, you cannot have infinite acceleration. Now you have to consider how much time you need to accelerate to reach a desired speed from your starting speed, as well as the amount of acceleration you provide, via applying a force (ie. F=ma). The total amount of energy change over a period of time during which you are accelerating with respect to a given frame now needs to be computed as an integral of the infinitesimal energy change over that period of time. In your example, in the case of both frame, you require the same energy change to provide the same acceleration (F=ma) as a force that would be applied over an infinitesimal period of time, but you would have to apply the force longer in the case of the moving frame which indeed requires more energy, which will be reflected in Newton's formula as an additional acceleration term. Lastly, if you are really serious about it, you need to use Lorentz transformations from special relativity to properly combine velocities and use the special relativity formula for kinetic energy.

[@herrhelmerich]

More videos like this would be of much help, sir. Thank you.

[@ahmedrafea8542]

Another very interesting video. Well done. I liked the idea of explaining the concept and equations in levels.

[@mansoorsiddiqui7396]

Love how you make these concepts so clear!

[@adiloravingal7638]

Really loved it . The most important thing in this video is not really Kinetic Energy (for me😂😂)LOL , It is understanding of moment of inertia. Now I have a more intutive way of thinking moment of inertia. Any way I really loved it . Can you write book for quantum mechanics for newbies? btw Your videos are awesome.

[@thedarkknight1865]

Cleared all my doubts related to KE. Make more such videos 👍

[@girindrasinghrathore8418]

Clicked video after notification with KE max

[@apalasingh355]

Now that's the kind of video i like👍👍👍

[@tomc642]

Excellent overview. Wonder what the historical development was that led to the 1/2 factor in the expression.

[@shuvashishsharma1299]

Informative and easy to understand.

[@technicalthodu7715]

This video is Amazing!you made me understand more about this topic than my high school books.

[@maxtube7207]

Excellent presentation skills

[@a.i7538]

keep this kind of video, i loved it

[@roberthuber2770]

This some bomb ass physics content right here... looking forward to your future videos

[@mmmecho]

Brillant, loved it, and thanks. I would like to hear you discuss quasi-particles, E = hf, and the confusing notion of where exactly is the energy assigned.

[@CarlosManAl]

Very interesting. Thank you very much

[@Threshold.edu1]

That's amazing please keep us up with 5 levels of physics

[@dincejoseph1521]

Exceptional. I expect some treatment on transistor as a switch

[@marcoparrinello7590]

Nice video, maybe in the third level you can use an argument like "If a mass m, with initial velocity v is thrown upwards how much kinetic energy it has at the beginning?" Now you use conservation of energy to show that K=mg y_f Where y_f is the maximum height reached which can be worked out from the equation of a uniformely accelerated motion y(t) =vt-1/2 gt² Which has a maximum for t_M=v/g y(t_M) =v²/2g So that kinetic energy is given by K=mg v²/2g=1/2mv² We can do a similar derivation in the case of a mass on a plane with friction and using the fact that the work of friction is equal to the loss of energy

[@vipinsharma9342]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 Thank you so much sir now I finally got the proper explanation of energy please make such more videos of trigonometric ratios of obtuse angles, it would be such a big help.

[@jhonnywhite1256]

Woah I absolutely needed to understand this, now that I know it I feel much relieved 😭😭😭

[@Jppradhan6890]

Hey parth I wanted to know what it really means to understand a concept or idea , does it mean being able to infer or deduce it using more fundamental idea or being able to form a picture or kind of metal model if so than of what accuracy. Btw great video as always. ❤️

[@slimothy02]

A good way to test if you understand an idea is to see if you can explain it to someone else

[@lattice737]

You didn't ask me, but I think your question is interesting. I think the best way we can measure understanding is to test "your" model of the concept that you build as you gain more knowledge and solve more problems. When I say "model," I mean the way that you approach problems with respect to a concept and how you envision the concept can change over time or in different circumstances. Over time, your model should become more consistent with scientific principles and theoretical & experimental evidence. If your model contradicts those things, that could be a sign that your model is incomplete (and therefore you need more information to better understand), but more excitingly, it could mean that your model explains what's happening even better than the accepted model! Science is all about refining accepted models into better approximations of the real world, so best practice is to try and generate your own from the ground up and continually take them as far as they can until they either break or represent a new discovery! I'm not sure if this answers your question, but this is how I think about understanding--it's my model of learning & understanding ;) Cheers

[@tanvirfarhan5585]

@@lattice737 great advise 🙂😄

[@ravenking2458]

E=√p²c²+m²c⁴ and p=mu as object is in rest. Since u=0 then p=m*0, hence initial momentum is 0. So E=√0*c²+m²c⁴, hence E=mc² :)

[@rob7469]

Please do a Explain video for the Lagrangian L=T - V (KE-PE). What does it mean? Why does it work? Thanks.

[@arnavkatepallewar1771]

@Parth G, please bring in the concept of electricity and how is it related to tensors and all that stuff!

[@1m2u3s8]

woooow amazing !!! I love you !! good job, bravo !!

[@amoghkodangala]

Hai dear Parth! You're doing great with these concepts. I request you to explain about Gibbs free energy.

[@kafuuchino3236]

How does this fit into general relativity? I know energy, momentum and pressure are the source of gravitational fields in GR, but kinetic energy and momentum are relative. Does this mean different observers disagree about how much spacetime is curved, because they disagree on what the source of the gravitational field is? That doesn't quite sit well with me because of black holes. Let's say a massive object was travelling close to the speed of light in my reference frame, but you're flying alongside it, stationary relative to it. I see it as having momentum and kinetic energy, you don't. So that implies its gravity would be stronger for me than for you - perhaps strong enough to be a black hole in my reference frame but not yours? That doesn't sound right...

[@chrisallen9509]

In GR, I think the answer is that you have coordinate independence so the way you represent the energy content of spacetime, via the energy momentum tensor is coordinate independent. That means you can transform to a different reference frame traveling at a different velocity than me, but we both measure the same curvature of spacetime (I believe this is called general covariance). In SR, I think this is analogous to saying that you can define your mass to be invariant under Lorentz transformations (m^2=E^2 - p^2 in natural units). This gets rid of the weird idea of relativistic mass saying that you somehow get more massive as you can kinetic energy. For a video showing why this interpretation is flawed, see Sean Carroll's video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJDcqZJ4p8mFfJo&ab_channel=2veritasium

[@kafuuchino3236]

@@chrisallen9509 So basically, even if energy and momentum themselves differ in different reference frames, they combine in such a way to make a tensor that's the same in all reference frames?

[@chrisallen9509]

@@kafuuchino3236 Yes pretty much, this is why tensors are so useful since they take things which might look completely different in different coordinate systems (e.g. Newton's 2nd law in spherical coordinates vs. Cartesian) and show that the underlying physics is the same.

[@sanjaythapa8090]

Can you make a video on electricity, explaining what voltage,current, potential,emf, potential differences are and how they depend.

[@piotoor_dev2579]

Very clear explanation

[@vinayakpandey1032]

you are a good teacher.

[@Siegfried527]

Loved it as Usual.

[@vishwanathmali4338]

I feel lucky to understand it all

[@mushtaqhussain8500]

Sir why don't you make proper full course videos like of relitivity,quantum l,optics etc As your conveying method is fantastic we can actually understand you

[@ManfredVonRichtoffen]

Great format on the 5 levels. I’d like to see it applied to EM induction

[@cianjones2728]

Fantastic video

[@ThembisaGana_bota]

A good teacher ❤❤

[@SoloBSD]

So, what is really energy? Does it really exist? Or is a product of our measures?

[@davidabramovitch4289]

5 levels of symmetry would be interesting, eg visual intuition of what a symmetry is, using symmetry to simplifying problems, thinking of symmetry in terms of groups/ transformations, noether's theorem, spontaneous symmetry breaking

[@tanvirfarhan5585]

great explaination

[@vctorroferz]

Amazing work!!

[@ChandanaKRUBEE]

Please make a vedio like this more about one concept at different levels in deep🙏🙏

[@haneen3731]

Awesome explanation!

[@mohammedbinalimaqqavi6599]

Just read Feynman's books: 6 easy pieces and 6 not so easy pieces. In these two books, he explains the idea of energy, kinetic energy so beautifully. I just fell in love with the concept. The part which I loved the most was the story of Dennis the Menace. In it, he explained the idea of energy so beautifully. Also, read about the idea of relativistic energy.

[@brady1123]

Great video! You did a wonderful job explaining kinetic energy all the way from PHY 101 up to Relatavity! One question: Is there a sign error inside of the square-root @8:51? Should that be addition instead of subtraction?

[@gokulgkurup6472]

I think so

[@ParthGChannel]

Thank you, and ah yes great spot - it should be a plus, not a minus :)

[@WildBillCox13]

Fun. Thanks for posting. Liked and shared.

[@omjethva886]

Mind blowing brother🤯🙌, love your content💯❤️

[@escain]

I just wanted to share with you what I found to be a counter-intuitive (at least to me) problem of Kinetic Energy: Let imagine a space shuttle of 100kg, just resting V=0 in outer space. The shuttle then activate a propulsor (full power) for 1s and consume 1kg of fuel to gain 10m/s. After, it activate the propulsor again for

[@varunrmallya5369]

It also lost mass when it burnt off the fuel which made it take lesser energy to move at the same speed

[@escain]

​@@varunrmallya5369 100kg or 99kg is not really relevant to the result.

[@alexskipper4050]

The weak point in your reasoning is the assumption that it will need less than 1Kg of fuel for the second acceleration. It will need more than that to double the speed. In fact you are changing the frame of reference. For the first acceleration you use a frame of reference pinned to the center of mass of the system spaceship/exhaust gas while for the second acceleration you use a frame of reference pinned to the spaceship which is moving in relation to the first frame of reference. You have a system of spaceship/exhaust gas and you have to calculate both the energy of the spaceship plus the energy of the exhaust gas

[@escain]

@@alexskipper4050 The trick is effectively about reference frame and Ek in the gas exhaust. But the

[@laurendoe168]

Ok... I've recently been told the following question is much deeper than it seems. I would love a 5 levels explanation to this question: Why can visible light pass easily through a quarter inch thick pane of glass, but not through a quarter inch thick wood plank?

[@gower1973]

I would say that the pane of glass probably has a very regular geometric crystalline structure that allows most of the photons to pass through unobstructed whereas the wood structure is probably more disordered and tangled up so to speak so more photons hit and bounce off rather than pass through

[@sankimalu]

More! Cover EVERYTHING!

[@umumuntuksemua9831]

This is really good, keep it up!

[@eulersfollower7140]

Pls make a video like this on Potential Energy.

[@ulflarsson9693]

Is it same energy/ mass of two object where one weighs 40 kg and the v is 10 km/h and the other object weighs 80 kg and the v is 5 km/h then?.

[@رضاشریعت]

8:52 You made a mistake You should have written Ek=sqrt(p^2c^2+m^2c^4)-mc^2 You wrote Ek=sqrt(p^2c^2-m^2c^4)-mc^2

[@MuhammadAli-lg5kz]

I have a question, is mass a from of energy. I mean is mass energy.

[@manavmnair6975]

Mass by itself isnt energy but mass can be converted to energy and vice versa using E = mc^2. In a nutshell, "Mass is like the condensed form of energy"

[@pavlopanasiuk7297]

One may consider mass as an energy in zero-momentum frame (in Lorentz-Heaviside aka natural units). If it's not the case, full energy of a free particle is given by E = \gamma m (\gamma stands for gamma-factor, it equals 1 in zero-momentum frame). If you like Einstein you may call \gamma m "mass", what is nowadays called "relativistic mass" and rarely used. If you like to keep things clear, better stick to the first definition, cause it gives that nice lorentz-invariance property to a mass.

[@EMAngel2718]

There is a form of kinetic energy that isn't reference frame dependent, and is arguably more directly useful, which is the kinetic energy between two objects, or the difference in the total referential kinetic energy in the two objects from their current state to the state they would be in after a fully inelastic collision. I say this is more directly useful because it also represents the maximum extractable kinetic energy when only considering those two objects.

[@0xmassive526]

Gold. Sweet work bruh

[@next_gen_gaming6006]

For rest p=0 in the equation E=Sqare root(p^2×c^2+m^2×c^4) So E=sq root(0+m^2*c^4) then By omiting the sq root we get E=MC^2

[@takyc7883]

great video

[@ArdhenduChakraborty621]

Subscribed. Talk about Boundary Layer Theory next. It'll be super interesting to see how you talk about BLT in Level 5. xD

[@chiraayu13296]

8:20 p is 0 at rest so root over m^2c^4 =mc^2?

[@icanphotosynthesize1962]

wow there's so much stuff I don't know that is pretty cool

[@mk-rh5vf]

Sir pls make a video on kinematics tips and tricks

[@dunravin]

Are there any actual experiments that prove an identical mass traveling at twice the speed will have four times the energy? When exactly was the 1/2mv² proof demonstrated (if ever) and by whom and has it ever been validated by replication? Something about this quadrupling of energy for a doubling of velocity or mass seems like a free energy machine and why haven't we exploited the hell out of it by now?

[@HoD999x]

wait... so 1 object moving at 2m/s has less energy than a twice as heavy object moving at half the speed? why is speed squared? does this also mean an objects moving at less than one meter uses "less less" energy because 0.1*0.1=0.01? what if we used a unit different than meters?

[@wayneyadams]

3:27 v is the velocity, v^2 is actually the scalar product (dot product) which results in a scalar. v is the vector, while v^2, i.e., v*v is the scalar.

[@Mysoi123]

Velocity is speed encoded along an axis. Speed is just how fast something is moving.

[@wayneyadams]

@@Mysoi123 encoded? Nothing is encoded. Speed is the rate at which a body moves while velocity is the rate at which a body travels from place to another (time rate of displacement), in other words a direction is included. In about a month or so, i am going to start a KZbin channel called "The Florida Physics Teacher" that will teach fundamental concepts of physics without math, in other words i will try to make the physics of our everyday world understandable to ordinary people. I invite you to watch it when it comes online.

[@Mysoi123]

@@wayneyadams Your definition of velocity is incomplete. Velocity is the rate at which a body moves with respect to each coordinate axis. For example, following a circle with a constant speed is actually constantly changing in direction in an x,y plane, therefore, respect to each coordinate, velocity is constantly changing, But speed doesn’t change, and yet, the kinetic energy is constant since it depends on speed, not velocity. You can’t have more KE in x axis than the y axis.

[@wayneyadams]

@@Mysoi123 You just defined acceleration which is the time rate change of velocity. Bodies accelerate when either magnitude changes, direction changes, or both. In addition, kinetic energy is a scalar quantity which is the result of the scalar product of the velocity (v times v). If you are not familiar with the different ways to multiply vector quantities, they are the scalar product which results in a scalar, and the vector product which results in a vector. An example of a vector product is torque which is the product of the force vector and the radius vector. You are correct in saying kinetic energy does not change for a body moving around a circle or along any path for that matter, as long as the magnitude of the velocity (assuming we don't change the mass) does not change. However, my definition of velocity is correct, it is the time rate change of position (displacement). It is not dependent on any coordinate system.

[@vansf3433]

The word "energy" can be interpreted in different ways, having different meanings. Hence, it is vague or ambiguous to be used to describe what make movements of objects, atomic particles, subatomic particles, heat, and chemical reactions happen because all of what you guys call as kinetic energy, electric energy, nuclear energy, potential energy, chemical energy, thermal energy come from forces, which make all such motions and chemical reactions possible Therefore, the correct word to describe what cause a motion of a physical entity or a form of matter is a kinetic or moving force, or kinetic forces, but not kinetic energy which is ambiguous language

[@haiderabbaskazmi6660]

Nice liked video can you make a five lelvel video on momentum

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Space is made of virtual particles which move at light speed. Real particles are bound state of virtual particles or highly condensed space. A particle has rest energy since virtual inside real particles are in perpetual motion. Virtual particles move from higher density to lower density space. In fission and fusion reactions real particles release some of virtual particles to space which has lowest density which also reduces their mass.The released virtual particles are responsible for kinetic energy of these reactions.

[@gamingadda901]

as the kinetic energy of a system is relativistic because of the speed, similarly is the force on a system relativistic because acceleration also depends on the frame of reference

[@kerbybryancruz9826]

I love this video

[@Jamesdavey358]

You should do hawking radiation!!!!

[@suga2420]

hey can you please explain why regardless of the reference frame or velocity of the observer, light is always measured to be c ms⁻¹ and not otherwise!!

[@ShadowZZZ]

In my studies of physics I myself have proven that E= 1/2 m v^2 is basically just an approximation of the actually binominal expansions done on Einstein's Energy Momentum Equation. The moment I realized this was a huge mindblown

[@grahamflowers]

Kinetic energy is the energy that can do work not just the energy of a moving object that is Mv squared force regards Graham Flowers

[@beeagle5801]

Is mass and velocity are directly proportional when density is same or constant?

[@steviebuchemy4950]

Hi! Why you don't said bout integrals of movement and lagrangian function?

[@zaynbashtash]

Maybe 5 levels of gravity? Great video btw

[@DrDeuteron]

Level 6: Poynting vector and the kinetic energy of fields?

[@DrDeuteron]

@@lattice737 S = E x H is the energy flux density (W/m^2) in an EM-field. Presumably it's kinetic energy. Divide by "c" to get momentum density.

[@esorse]

If there is an electron cloud about an atomic nucleus, in ergodic motion from some kinetic energy complemented by potential energy - from nuclei displacement - , governed by the law of energy conservation : quantum system total energy is constant, because kinetic energy increases when potential energy decreases - modelled by the Hamiltonian operator 'acting' by multiplication on a wave function describing the quantum system - and there is a minimun partition discretizing space and time, then there must be some non-quantum universal input for the required change in associated electron ergodic motion from a cerebral disturbance and this could be from a measurement - characterized by an operator acting on the wave function, resulting in the system's collapse - , the quantum mechanics equivalent of L'Hospital's rule, solving an indeterminate form, implying that reason may be how a non-quantum universe is initialized for physical teleportation.

[@lorylorika4940]

Kinetic energy depends on position and structure ???