Understanding G.P.E and Gravitational Binding Energy - A Conceptual Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter san203
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conceptual
AI Thread Summary
Gravitational Potential Energy (G.P.E) is defined by an object's position within a gravitational field, while Gravitational Binding Energy (G.B.E) refers to the energy required to remove an object from a gravitational influence, such as Earth, to an infinite distance. To escape Earth's gravitational field, an object must be supplied with enough kinetic energy to overcome gravitational pull, as G.P.E increases with height. The concept of G.B.E can vary depending on whether it refers to a single object or a collection of objects, such as a planet. Ultimately, sufficient energy must be provided to ensure the object does not return to Earth, as gravitational forces diminish with distance.
san203
Gold Member
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
I have always thought of G.P.E as how much a constrained body wants to fall in the direction of Gravitational Force Feild.But a while back i came across the concept of Gravitational Binding Energy.

The book said that it was the Modulus of G.P.E and it was the energy by which an object is bound to earth. So now do i have to think of G.P.E as the energy by which a object is bound to earth?
And why should i supply this much energy to the body as Kinetic energy to separate the body from Earth when the only reason its still bound is the Gravitational Force?
I am sorry if the question is confusing as i spent few hours thinking of this and got confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gravitational Binding energy is how much energy you would have to supply to remove an object from the Earth to "infinity". This only changes if you change the mass of the object you want to remove or you change the object you are removing it from. (IE the GBE changes for a 1kg block if you look at how much it takes to remove it from Mars instead of the Earth.)

Gravitational Potential Energy is how much potential energy an object has based on its location in a gravitational field. IE a rock held up at 10 feet in the air has more GPE than a rock held at 5 feet in the air.

Does that make sense?
 
Thanks. After some thinking i figured out about P.E.
If a body has to escape the Gravitational Field of Earth then it must be taken to a position where G.P.E is zero,right? if i supply a body with enough force( = Work done = Change in Energy??) it would probably move away from Earth , But that is thinking the P.E. is constant. But doesn't G.P.E increase as we go up? SO can one say that G.B.E is constant?
 
interesting... I have come across the phrase "gravitational binding energy" to mean something different. When I have seen it, it means the total gravitational potential energy of a collection of objects. In other words, the energy required to move all those objects infinitely far away from every other one.

I have seen this in questions about the gravitational binding energy of a planet. So in that case, it means the energy required to completely take apart all the matter which makes up the planet, and remove it all infinitely far away. (In that case, it is continuous matter, not a discrete set of objects, but the maths is pretty similar).

Maybe your book was using "gravitational binding energy" in the sense I am talking about here. Or maybe not. It is difficult to tell, without knowing what the sentence was specifically..
 
san203 said:
Thanks. After some thinking i figured out about P.E.
If a body has to escape the Gravitational Field of Earth then it must be taken to a position where G.P.E is zero,right? if i supply a body with enough force( = Work done = Change in Energy??) it would probably move away from Earth , But that is thinking the P.E. is constant. But doesn't G.P.E increase as we go up? SO can one say that G.B.E is constant?

No, it must be given enough energy so that the gravitational field of the Earth will never pull it back down. The potential energy will constantly increase, and the object will constantly decelerate, but since the strength of gravity falls off with distance, if we launch it with a high enough velocity the object will never fully stop.

If you assume an object is "infinitely far away" from the Earth and you allow that object to come straight towards the Earth under the force of gravity, it will impact the Earth with X amount of energy. This energy, when the object was AT infinity, was gravitational potential energy. Right before it impacted the Earth it was all kinetic energy instead. Ignoring losses from air resistance and other factors, this same amount of energy must be given to an object in the form of kinetic energy to launch it back out "to infinity". Does that make sense?
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
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...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top