Can potential energy be greater than total energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a homework problem involving an object with a potential energy function U = 2e^(-x^2) and a constant total energy E = 1J. It highlights the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy, emphasizing that as potential energy increases, kinetic energy decreases due to conservation of energy. The confusion arises when potential energy exceeds 1J, suggesting that kinetic energy would become negative, which is impossible. This indicates that the object cannot reach positions where U exceeds 1J, implying it cannot move beyond a certain point. The conclusion drawn is that the object remains stationary when potential energy exceeds its total energy.
thomasb1215
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
I'm working on a homework problem which states:

"Some object, starting from far down the negative x-axis and moving in the positive x direction, experiences a force, the potential energy U of which is modeled by the function U = 2e^(-x^2), where x is in meters and U is in Joules. The total energy E of the object remains constant at E = 1J. Describe the motion of the object."

The problem isn't worded that well but I take it to mean the potential energy of the object, not of the force.

Relevant equations:
E = U + K
ΔU + ΔK = 0

I understand everything up until the point where U = 1. I know that the greater the potential energy gets, the lesser the kinetic energy gets due to conservation of energy. Thus, the object will slow down as U gets larger and speed up as U gets smaller. When U is greater a than 1, however, K would have to be negative for E to remain constant, which I know is not possible, so I am confused. Am I overlooking something that has to do with the force applied to the object?

Thanks in advance for the help.
 
  • Like
Likes gracy
Physics news on Phys.org
thomasb1215 said:
When U is greater a than 1..., which I know is not possible,
Exactly. So what does that tell you about the motion of the object?
 
My guess would be that it's not moving, but I'm still not sure how that makes sense in the E = U + K equation.
 
thomasb1215 said:
My guess would be that it's not moving
It tells you more than that.
You wrote, correctly:
thomasb1215 said:
... U is greater than 1, however, ... is not possible
Think about this: if you throw a stone up at 1m/s, what will be its speed when it reaches an altitude of 1km?
 
So it never gets there in the first place.
 
thomasb1215 said:
So it never gets there in the first place.
Indeed.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
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