Can't find expression for work done by gravity. Please help.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the expression for work done by gravitational force when moving an object from infinity to a distance 'r'. The user initially believes the work should be positive since the displacement is in the direction of the gravitational force. However, they obtain a negative value, leading to confusion. The explanation clarifies that the negative result arises because the integration is performed over a range where the initial distance is greater than the final distance, and the gravitational force is inherently negative as it points inward. Additionally, it emphasizes that potential energy is negative at all points except infinity, where it is defined as zero.
Prem1998
Messages
148
Reaction score
13
Hi, I was deriving an expression for the work done by gravitational force of an object in moving another object from infinity to a distance 'r' from it. I think it should be positive valued because since displacement in this case is in the direction of the gravitational force, so work done by gravity must be positive. But why am I getting a negative valued expression as follows?:
Suppose the masses of the two objects A and B are 'M' and 'm'. Then gravitational force between them when located at a distance 'x' is:
F=GMm/R^2,
suppose B is moved by this force by a small distance dx, then work done by F is:
dW= (GMm/R^2)*dx*cos0 (because dx is in the direction of F)
= (GMm/R^2)*dx
therefore net work done in moving B from infinity to 'r' is:
W= integration[(GMm/R^2)*dx] with upper limit r and lower limit infinity,
= GMm* [-1/R] from infinity to r
= GMm* [-1/r-(-1/infinity)]
= GMm* [-1/r+0]
= -GMm/r
So, why am I getting negative value of work done by gravity even when displacement is in the direction of force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Prem1998 said:
dW= (GMm/R^2)*dx*cos0 (because dx is in the direction of F)
You are integrating a positive quantity over a range where the initial value is greater than the final value. Of course you are going to get a negative result.

Gravity points inward. Its sign is negative. Multiply it by a positive dx and you should get a negative quantity. Let the fact that you are integrating with inverted endpoints take care of the resulting sign problem for you.
 
Prem1998 said:
Then gravitational force between them when located at a distance 'x' is:
F=GMm/R^2,
Here is the problem. Note that according to this expression F is not a function of x. If you were to write the force in terms of x then it would be F=-GMm/x^2 because F points in the opposite direction of increasing x.
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller
something else that may help you get to grips with this aspect of physics:- lifting an object increases its potential energy, therefore it has maximum potential energy when it is lifted to infinity.
This is true for all masses so it makes some sense to agree that the zero of potential energy is
at infinity. This means that all values of potential energy are negative.
The potential at the Earths surface is -63 Mj/kg which means that 63Mj of energy must be supplied to each kg to lift it to infinity (escape from the Earth)
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top