- #1

- 282

- 17

- Why is potential energy only associated with conservative forces?
- Does potential energy really exist? Or Is it just kinetic energy from different reference frame?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Kaushik
- Start date

In summary: Thanks for the link!I would say the phrase "conservative force" is just another word for the case that the force is only dependent on position variables and is given as the gradient of a potential,$$\vec{F}=-\vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x}).$$Of course for energy conservation to hold this is only a sufficient but not a necessary condition. An example is the force on a moving charge in a magnetic field, $$\vec{F}=\frac{q}{c} \vec{v} \times \vec{B}(t,\vec{x}).$$for which also energy conservation holds (here energy being

- #1

- 282

- 17

- Why is potential energy only associated with conservative forces?
- Does potential energy really exist? Or Is it just kinetic energy from different reference frame?

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

- 26,626

- 18,182

Kaushik said:Summary:I want to know about potential energy.

Is it possible to briefly explain the potential energy concept?

- Why is potential energy only associated with conservative forces?
- Does potential energy really exist? Or Is it just kinetic energy from different reference frame?

This is too broad a question for PF. You need to find a good reference, textbook or online.

To answer part of your question: PE exists in the sense that it can always be converted back into KE; and, it isn't just KE from a different reference frame.

- #3

Mentor

- 35,156

- 13,379

That is just a matter of definition. Any force which is associated with a potential energy is called a conservative force.Kaushik said:Why is potential energy only associated with conservative forces?

Potential energy is not just kinetic energy from a different frame.Kaushik said:Does potential energy really exist? Or Is it just kinetic energy from different reference frame?

- #4

- 282

- 17

Can you please define it for me?Dale said:That is just a matter of definition.

- #5

Mentor

- 35,156

- 13,379

A conservative force is any force such that ##F=-\nabla \phi## where ##\phi## is a scalar field called the potential.Kaushik said:Can you please define it for me?

- #6

- 26,626

- 18,182

Kaushik said:Can you please define it for me?

There is lots of reference material online about conservative forces and their properties. Which property you choose to define "conservative" is a matter of taste.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_force

- #7

- 282

- 17

'All conservative force must be a function of position only and not of velocity or time'

Is this true? If yes, why?

- #8

- 26,626

- 18,182

Kaushik said:

'All conservative force must be a function of position only and not of velocity or time'

Is this true? If yes, why?

Maybe that's something you could work out for yourself.

- #9

Mentor

- 35,156

- 13,379

This is a hard one to work out for yourself. For a force to be conservative it is necessary that ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\phi=0## but it is not necessary that ##\frac{d}{dt}\phi=0##.Kaushik said:

'All conservative force must be a function of position only and not of velocity or time'

Is this true? If yes, why?

- #10

- 282

- 17

Can I get any link so that I can get to know more about it? I searched but I couldn't find any. It would be nice if you can help me .Dale said:This is a hard one to work out for yourself. For a force to be conservative it is necessary that ##\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\phi=0## but it is not necessary that ##\frac{d}{dt}\phi=0##.

- #11

Mentor

- 35,156

- 13,379

See the posts by @vanhees71 in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-constraints-mean-energy-conservation.816591/Kaushik said:Can I get any link so that I can get to know more about it? I searched but I couldn't find any. It would be nice if you can help me .

Also, this seemed good: https://www.chm.uri.edu/dfreeman/chm531_pfizer_2009/cm.pdf but most books that talk about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics should have at least a brief mention. Even wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

- #12

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 3,189

- 1,339

Kaushik said:Why is potential energy only associated with conservative forces?

For the potential energy to be defined at a point it's necessary that the work done by the force around a closed loop be zero.

Kaushik said:Can I get any link so that I can get to know more about it? I searched but I couldn't find any. It would be nice if you can help me .

Are you in a calculus-based college-level physics course, or is it a non-calculus course? Any college-level introductory physics textbook will do. Here's a link to a few, free provided you download the PDF.

https://openstax.org/subjects/science

- #13

- 282

- 17

Thanks for link!Mister T said:For the potential energy to be defined at a point it's necessary that the work done by the force around a closed loop be zero.

Are you in a calculus-based college-level physics course, or is it a non-calculus course? Any college-level introductory physics textbook will do. Here's a link to a few, free provided you download the PDF.

https://openstax.org/subjects/science

- #14

- 24,492

- 15,004

$$\vec{F}=-\vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x}).$$

Of course for energy conservation to hold this is only a sufficient but not a necessary condition. An example is the force on a moving charge in a magnetic field,

$$\vec{F}=\frac{q}{c} \vec{v} \times \vec{B}(t,\vec{x}).$$

for which also energy conservation holds (here energy being the kinetic energy only). Though (kinetic) energy is conserved here, one doesn't call this force "conservative", because it's not of the type described by this phrase.

- #15

- 282

- 17

Is ##\Delta K.E + \Delta G.P.E + \Delta E.P.E = W_{ncf}## ,where 'ncf' stands for non conservative force?

Last edited:

- #16

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,364

- 7,112

With minor caveats, it is correct yes. You've split up all the forces acting on an object into three categories.Kaushik said:

1. Gravitational force. Associated with a potential named "G.P.E."

2. Other forces that have associated potentials. Associated with an aggregate potential named "E.P.E."

3. Other forces not associated with potentials.

The equation comes, of course, from the work-energy theorem: ##\Delta K.E. = W = \Sigma F\cdot d##

You've simply taken the work from gravity and from all the other conservative forces and moved the associated terms over to the energy side of the equation as potentials. Since the potentials are defined in terms of the work done over a path, this is a perfectly valid thing to do.

Minor caveats:

The gravitational field has to be static. No gravitational slingshots.

If the object upon which work is being done is extended and is either non-rigid or is rotating then we need to compute the work done on the object by considering all external forces as acting on its center of mass. We need to compute the resulting kinetic energy based on total mass and the motion of the center of mass only. (i.e. we need to use center-of-mass work and bulk kinetic energy).

Share:

- Replies
- 55

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 743

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 875

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 796

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 632

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 932

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 779

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 858