Confusion about Gravitational Potential

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational potential energy can be expressed in two ways: U(h) = mgh for uniform gravitational fields and U = -GMm/r for spherical bodies. The first formula assumes the zero potential is at ground level, while the second sets it at infinity, leading to the negative sign. Changes in potential energy are the focus, as constants can be added without affecting physical outcomes. The mgh approximation is useful for small height changes compared to the radius of the spherical body, simplifying calculations. Understanding these distinctions clarifies the concepts of gravitational potential energy.
dcl
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Heya's
Im a bit confused reguarding gravitational potential energy.
I've seen 2 different calculations

U(h) = mgh
where h is the height above the ground.

and
U = -GMm/r (off the top of my head, havnt got my notes here with me right now)

Could anyone help clear this up for me? Why does one expression have a negative potential?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dcl said:
Heya's
Im a bit confused reguarding gravitational potential energy.
I've seen 2 different calculations

U(h) = mgh
where h is the height above the ground.

and
U = -GMm/r (off the top of my head, havnt got my notes here with me right now)

Could anyone help clear this up for me? Why does one expression have a negative potential?
The former, U(h), applies to a uniform gravitational field where the zero of potential is at h = 0. The later, U = -GMm/r, applies to the gravitational field of a spherical body where the zero potential is at r = infinity. Plot each on a graph and you'll notice that each is a decreasing function of r, only the shape of the curve is different.

Keep in mind that only changes in potential are physically meaningful. You can always add a constant without changing the physics. The constant is usually chosen to make the math as simple as possible.

Pete
 
I see, makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Just to add to what pmb_phy said, we use mgh much of the time in calculations because it is a good approximation to the change in the gravitational potential (given by U = -GMm/r) for small distances. i.e. when h << r.

Matt
 
r=R+h

So,

U =\frac {-GMm} {r} = \frac {-GMm} {R+h} = \frac {-GMm} {R} (1 + h/R)^{-1}

For h<<R, you can expand the last term binomially, and neglect terms of second order and up. So,

U = \frac {-GMm} {R} (1 - h/R) =\frac {-GMm} {R} + \frac {GMmh} {R^2}
= Constant + (m)*(\frac {GM} {R^2})*h = Constant + mgh

Since we are interested only in changes in potential, we can throw away the constant term.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...
Back
Top