An object moves uphill in a potential

Thread starter delve
Start date Dec 6, 2009
Tags

Potential

AI Thread Summary

When an object moves "uphill" in a potential, the work done on it is negative, indicating a decrease in kinetic energy. This means the object will move slower as it ascends to a higher potential. The mathematical representation involves integrating the gradient of potential energy. Understanding this concept is crucial for analyzing energy changes in physical systems. The discussion highlights the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy during such movements.

Dec 6, 2009

delve

an object moves "uphill" in a potential

=-\int_{1}^{2}\nabla\mbox{U}\cdot\mbox{dr}\

=-\int_{1}^{2}\mbox{dU}

How can this be?

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you

Physics news on Phys.org

Dec 6, 2009

Redbelly98

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Insights Author

This says, essentially, that if an object moves "uphill" in a potential, the work done on the object is negative and so it will have less kinetic energy (move slower) when it moves towards a higher potential.

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

View full post »

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 »