Gravitational Potential Energy Definition

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational potential energy should be defined as a joint property of an object and the gravitational field created by other bodies, rather than in isolation. Referring to the gravitational potential energy of an object without considering other gravitational influences is deemed incorrect. The phrase "the gravitational potential energy of the vase" is less accurate than "the gravitational potential energy of the vase-Earth system." This distinction is increasingly recognized in better scientific literature. Properly defining gravitational potential energy enhances clarity in understanding its relationship with surrounding masses.
jmsmith
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I have a technical question regarding the definition of gravitational potential energy: How correct is it to discuss/define the gravitational potential energy of object A without regard for the other bodies that are exerting a gravitational force on object A?

I find this kind of thing in science books all the time: "The gravitational potential energy of the vase is 20 J..."

How well does this compare with: "The gravitational potential energy of the vase-Earth system is 20 J..."?

I personally think the second version is better, but I have enough doubts and interest to ask.

Ultimately, how should gravitational potential energy be defined?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jmsmith said:
I have a technical question regarding the definition of gravitational potential energy: How correct is it to discuss/define the gravitational potential energy of object A without regard for the other bodies that are exerting a gravitational force on object A?
It's not correct at all.

I find this kind of thing in science books all the time: "The gravitational potential energy of the vase is 20 J..."
Little by little, such sloppy usage is going away.

How well does this compare with: "The gravitational potential energy of the vase-Earth system is 20 J..."?
That's the more correct version, found in the better textbooks.

I personally think the second version is better, but I have enough doubts and interest to ask.
Good for you. :smile:

Ultimately, how should gravitational potential energy be defined?
As a joint property of the two objects and their gravitational field.
 

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Gravitational potential energy question -- Ojbect sitting on the Earth
Replies
3
Views
1K
Gravitational potential energy -- Why is it always negative?
Replies
10
Views
3K
How does gravitational potential energy work?
Replies
27
Views
12K
I How to interpret this definition of potential energy?
Replies
10
Views
2K
How to relate the gravitational potential energy zero to the axes?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Conservative forces, Nonconservative forces and Potential Energy
Replies
9
Views
3K
Two separate "gravitational potential energy" equations?
Replies
11
Views
3K
I Change of coordinates in a potential energy field
Replies
2
Views
1K
Vertical spring, the relationship between potential energies
Replies
10
Views
2K
Question About Potential Energy
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top