Quick P. Energy Derivation Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angry Citizen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Energy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the work-potential energy theorem, specifically the negative sign in the equation dV = -Fdr. This negative sign is justified by convention rather than logic, indicating that for conservative forces, potential energy can be defined. The equation implies that when positive work is done by field forces on an object, its potential energy decreases while its kinetic energy increases. Understanding this relationship is crucial for grasping energy transformations in physics. The focus remains on the definitions and conventions used in energy derivation.
Angry Citizen
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
When deriving the work-potential energy theorem, my book states that dV (derivative of the potential energy) is equal to the negative of Fdr without a corresponding explanation. What is the justification behind the negative sign?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As such,there is no explanation,its about definition.

The important thing is,for conservative forces,you can define a potential.Even if you had define dV=Fdr,you would have a consistent theory.The fact that dV=-Fdr,and not Fdr,is not logic,its convention.

In essence,it means that,when positive work is done by the field forces on body,its potential energy decreases,and kinetic energy increases.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
I passed a motorcycle on the highway going the opposite direction. I know I was doing 125/km/h. I estimated that the frequency of his motor dropped by an entire octave, so that's a doubling of the wavelength. My intuition is telling me that's extremely unlikely. I can't actually calculate how fast he was going with just that information, can I? It seems to me, I have to know the absolute frequency of one of those tones, either shifted up or down or unshifted, yes? I tried to mimic the...
Back
Top