Do Satellites with Greater Mass Have Lower Gravitational Potential Energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the gravitational potential energy (GPE) of satellites with different masses. The formula for GPE is -GMm/r, leading to the conclusion that a more massive satellite has a more negative GPE, indicating lower energy compared to a less massive satellite. The reference point for GPE is crucial; while it can be defined as zero at the Earth's surface, the conventional choice is zero at an infinite distance from the Earth. This means that although a more massive satellite has a greater GPE at higher altitudes, it has a lower GPE at any finite altitude compared to a less massive one. The choice of reference point is arbitrary and can affect the interpretation of GPE in different contexts.
semc
Messages
364
Reaction score
5
Negative GPE?

hmm...i came across this qn which ask whether a satellite which has twice the mass of the other will have a higher gravitational potnetial energy...so the formula for GPE will be -GMm/r right? i deduce that since the mass of satellite i greater it will posses greater GPE but i was wrong :cry: :cry:
the reason i got was the satellite with bigger mass will have a more negative GPE so its GPE is lower so i was wondering is this really the case? i thought that the magnitude of the GPE tells you how much PE the object posses in the orbit?

Thanks :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
semc said:
hmm...i came across this qn which ask whether a satellite which has twice the mass of the other will have a higher gravitational potnetial energy...so the formula for GPE will be -GMm/r right? i deduce that since the mass of satellite i greater it will posses greater GPE but i was wrong :cry: :cry:
the reason i got was the satellite with bigger mass will have a more negative GPE so its GPE is lower so i was wondering is this really the case? i thought that the magnitude of the GPE tells you how much PE the object posses in the orbit?

Thanks :biggrin:
It is difficult to compare things that have arbitrary reference points. If you defined the potential energy of both objects to be zero at the surface of the earth, then the more massive object would have greater GPE than the less massive object everywhere above the earth. The Earth's surface is not a convenient reference point for orbital systems, so the convention is to define GPE to be zero at an infinite distance from the earth. The more massive satelite's GPE will increase at a faster rate as altitude increases. For both to have zero GPE at infinity, the more massive satellite must have less at any finite altitude. This is consistent with the expression you wrote that is based on the conventional choice of reference that GPE = 0 at infinity.
 
alrite thanks got it...maybe i can argue with my teacher that i am taking reference from surface of Earth!
 
semc said:
alrite thanks got it...maybe i can argue with my teacher that i am taking reference from surface of Earth!
Actually, you would be on firm footing if you did, though I'm not recommending it. Only changes in potential energy have physicsal signifigance. The choice of reference point is completely arbitrary, and a matter of convenince. There are good reasons for choosing the reference of zero at infinity, but obviously we often choose the zero to be elsewhere when we are doing problems near the Earth's surface.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top