Timeline for Why does the amount of energy transferred depend on distance rather than time?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2021 at 23:15 | comment | added | Krupip | @Andrew Yes I think that's right | |
| May 13, 2021 at 20:14 | comment | added | Andrew | @hythis Wow it has been a long time since I wrote this answer! I think you are right -- does it look better now? | |
| May 13, 2021 at 20:13 | history | edited | Andrew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| May 13, 2021 at 18:13 | comment | added | Krupip | Is your math right? there's not a lot of explanation of what you did, I assume you multiplied by 1 on $\frac{\sqrt{2m}}{2\sqrt{E}} \frac{dE}{dt}$, but that would have been $\sqrt{2m}$ which would be $\frac{\sqrt{2m}*\sqrt{2m}}{2\sqrt{E}*\sqrt{2m}}$, which then should be $\frac{2m}{2\sqrt{2mE}}$ ie $\frac{2m}{2p}$ | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 19:07 | comment | added | Andrew | Exactly. It's one of those subtle things, that doesn't really have an intuitive 'layman' explanation, you really have to look at the formalism to see which one of energy and momentum you are talking about. As an aside, I'm intrigued that the force measures the spatial derivative of the energy, which is conserved because of a time translation symmetry, and conversely measures the time derivative of the momentum, conserved because of space translations. I don't know if it's significant or not but it's sort of striking, as I look over this again. | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 19:03 | comment | added | William Breathitt Gray | I think the fault in my logic was conceptualizing constant force as introducing energy at a consistent rate, when it was in fact introducing momentum at a consistent rate! | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 19:01 | vote | accept | William Breathitt Gray | ||
| Oct 3, 2013 at 18:57 | history | answered | Andrew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |