Conservation of Energy Problem: Where did it go?

AI Thread Summary
When a boulder is shot vertically into the air, its kinetic energy converts into gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy of air particles due to resistance. Even when the boulder breaks free from Earth's gravitational pull, gravitational potential energy does not disappear; it simply becomes negligible as the distance increases. The concept of gravitational potential energy is defined to be negative at finite distances, reaching zero only at infinity, ensuring energy conservation throughout the process. The formula for gravitational potential energy (GPE = mgh) is an approximation for small height changes, while the more accurate formula for larger distances is GPE = -G/(M.m.r). Understanding these principles is crucial for mastering conservation of energy concepts in physics.
joelio36
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
Conservation of Energy Problem: Where did it go??

Imagine I shoot a boulder vertically into the air with a massive cannon.

Its kinetic energy is converted into gravitational potential, and into KE of air particles (air resistance).

So at m metres above the ground, mgh is the Potential energy

But what happens once this boulder breaks orbit, free from the Earth's gravitational pull?

I think I am missing something but in my head, the Gravitation Potential just disappears, and the object carries on with any KE left.

Thanks for any help, got an exam heavy on conservation of energy in 2 days!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


joelio36 said:
Imagine I shoot a boulder vertically into the air with a massive cannon.

Its kinetic energy is converted into gravitational potential, and into KE of air particles (air resistance).

So at m metres above the ground, mgh is the Potential energy

But what happens once this boulder breaks orbit, free from the Earth's gravitational pull?

I think I am missing something but in my head, the Gravitation Potential just disappears, and the object carries on with any KE left.

Thanks for any help, got an exam heavy on conservation of energy in 2 days!

The gravitational potential energy does not 'go' anywhere. Contrary to your impression, there is no point in space (except at 'infinity') at which the object is completely free of the Earth's gravitational field - however, since the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, at some point we can say that the field is negligible and the boulder appears 'free'. But we still have to put in (some vanishingly small amount of) energy to separate the masses further, and conversely we will gain energy if the masses are brought closer together.

How does this relate to conservation of energy? We define gravitational potential energies to be negative at finite distances (and zero at infinity). This definition means that as an initially-stationary object accelerates towards a mass from infinity, the potential energy 'decreases' (i.e. becomes more negative) whilst the kinetic energy increases (becomes more positive) in such a way that the net energy remains zero - energy is conserved.

Note that your formula GPE = mgh is an approximation only valid for small changes h in radial distance r such as one may achieve when jumping in the air on Earth, but for large changes in r we need to use the full formula GPE = -G/(M.m.r) (note the negative sign!)
 


joelio36 said:
in my head, the Gravitation Potential just disappears
The PE does not disappear, it goes to a finite maximum limit.
 
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