Where Does the Extra Energy Come From in a Gravitational Field?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of energy changes in a gravitational field, particularly focusing on the relationship between potential energy and gravitational acceleration as one falls. Participants explore theoretical scenarios, including extreme gravitational fields near dense astronomical objects like neutron stars or black holes, and question the implications for energy conservation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that as one falls in a gravitational field, both potential energy and kinetic energy change, leading to questions about the source of this "extra" energy.
  • Others argue that potential energy decreases as height decreases, but in certain extreme cases, gravitational acceleration can increase significantly, complicating the understanding of energy changes.
  • A participant mentions that the equation for gravitational potential energy assumes a constant gravitational acceleration, suggesting that integration is necessary when g varies with height.
  • One participant provides the formula for gravitational potential energy in relation to distance from a mass, indicating that potential energy becomes more negative as one approaches a massive object.
  • There is a discussion about the concept of negative energy and how potential energy is relative to a chosen reference point, leading to questions about the implications of measuring potential energy from different heights.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of potential energy and its relationship to gravitational acceleration. There is no consensus on the implications of these relationships, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the source of energy in varying gravitational fields.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of assumptions regarding gravitational fields and the definitions of potential energy, particularly in extreme scenarios. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps related to the integration of gravitational forces.

daniel_i_l
Gold Member
Messages
864
Reaction score
0
Lets imagine that there is a gravitational field and you are in a position that if you fall a meter your g increases by 2m/s/s (I'm pretty that that's possible). In this case, the more you fall the more P energy you get and you get more K energy. In order for this not to contradict the conservation of energy law, I thought that the extra energy had to do with the gravitational energy, but that also increases. Were does the extra energy come from?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have potential energy backwards. Potential energy increases as you go up.
 
I know that normally potential energy decreases as you go down because
Ep = mgh and h gets smaller. But in this case h gets smaller as you fall
(Hf = Hi-1), but the g gets bigger (gf = gi + 2) so the total Ep get bigger?
This can happen with a very dense mass were a small change in the H can make an even bigger change on the g (R^2).
 
daniel_i_l said:
Lets imagine that there is a gravitational field and you are in a position that if you fall a meter your g increases by 2m/s/s (I'm pretty that that's possible).

maybe somewhere close to a neutron star or black hole. that's got to be a pretty scary graviational field I'm in if it increases by 20% in the space of a meter! :eek:
 
Thank for the reply, well it doesn't have to be by that much, and even if it was, were did all that energy come from?
 
There's no "extra" energy. The equation E=mgh assumes g=constant. For the case where the factor g changes with h, you will need to integrate. As you drop, h gets smaller and g gets bigger, so the amount of potential energy per unit h increases as you look at a point closer to the 'black hole'.
 
Thanks, could you tell me what the integral is (I'm just curious)
 
I don't have it handy. Maybe someone else does or would like to figure it out, it can't be that tough.
 
The gravitational PE of an object of mass m at a distance R from the center of a spherically symmetric mass M (with radius < R) is:
[tex]- \frac{G M m}{R}[/tex]

This results from integrating [tex]\frac{G M m}{r^2} \ dr[/tex]. (Note that the PE is taken to be zero when m is infinitely far from M.)
 
  • #10
Thanks Doc Al, I was happy to see that resualt cause after Q's reply I worked it out and got to that answer!:smile:
But doesn't that just complicates things more!? According to that equation, [tex]E_{p}[/tex] is inversly related to R, so the closer you get the more Ep you get, not less, that in addition to getting more [tex]E_{k}[/tex] ?
 
  • #11
Don't neglect the minus sign! Gravitational PE gets smaller (more negative) as R decreases.
 
  • #12
How can there be negative energy? doesn't the (-) just show that we are looking at the energy relative to infinity, what if I'm looking for the potential energy relative to the ground?
How can something be "closer" or "further" from infinity?
Sorry for my misunderstanding Doc Al.
 
  • #13
daniel_i_l said:
How can there be negative energy? doesn't the (-) just show that we are looking at the energy relative to infinity, what if I'm looking for the potential energy relative to the ground?
Potential energy is measured relative to an arbitrary zero point. (The most convient zero point is at infinity, when considering large distances where the gravitational field strength varies. Near to the earth, one simply uses PE = mgy, choosing any level as zero.) Of course the PE can be negative. If you measure the PE with respect to ground level, what's the PE of a object sitting in a hole?

To find the difference in PE between any two points, plug the distances into the formula. (Compare the PE for R = radius of Earth to the PE for R = radius of Earth + h.) You'll find, as expected, that the PE increases as the object is raised above the ground.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K