Equation for Gravitation potential energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of gravitational potential energy, specifically the equations used to describe it: U = -Gm1m2/r and U = mgh. Participants explore the implications of these equations, particularly in relation to height and reference points for potential energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the equation U = -Gm1m2/r implies that gravitational potential energy approaches zero as the distance r approaches infinity, leading to questions about the meaning of potential energy at different heights.
  • Others argue that lifting an object increases its potential energy, suggesting that as height (h) increases, potential energy increases, which seems contradictory to the negative potential energy at infinity.
  • One participant emphasizes that potential energy itself is not meaningful without considering the difference in potential energy between two locations, advocating for the use of ΔU = mgΔh to avoid confusion.
  • Another participant suggests that the ΔU = Gm1m2*Δ(1/r) formulation can be applied over longer scales, noting that for small changes in 1/r, the two formulations become equivalent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of gravitational potential energy and its reference points. While some agree on the importance of considering changes in potential energy, there is no consensus on the best approach or the implications of the equations discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the U = mgh formula applies under the assumption of a uniform gravitational field, which may not hold in all scenarios, particularly in cases involving larger distances or varying gravitational fields.

member 392791
So I was looking at the equation for Gravitation potential energy

U = - Gm1m2/r

This implies the energy is 0 as r→∞

However, if I lift a book above my head, wouldn't it have more potential energy than if it was lying on the ground, meaning as r (h) increases, potential energy increases? Where is my misconception here?

PE = mgh

Wikipedia: ''The factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in. Thus, a book lying on a table has less gravitational potential energy than the same book on top of a taller cupboard, and less gravitational potential energy than a heavier book lying on the same table. An object at a certain height above the Moon's surface has less gravitational potential energy than at the same height above the Earth's surface because the Moon's gravity is weaker. Note that "height" in the common sense of the term cannot be used for gravitational potential energy calculations when gravity is not assumed to be a constant. The following sections provide more detail.''
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Woopydalan said:
So I was looking at the equation for Gravitation potential energy

U = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r}

This implies the energy is 0 as ''r''→∞

However, if I lift a book above my head, wouldn't it have more potential energy than if it was lying on the ground, meaning as r (h) increases, potential energy increases? Where is my misconception here?

PE = mgh

it does have more potential energy at ''r''→∞ than it has on the ground. 0 is bigger than a negative number.

Wikipedia: ''The factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in. Thus, a book lying on a table has less gravitational potential energy than the same book on top of a taller cupboard, and less gravitational potential energy than a heavier book lying on the same table. An object at a certain height above the Moon's surface has less gravitational potential energy than at the same height above the Earth's surface because the Moon's gravity is weaker. Note that "height" in the common sense of the term cannot be used for gravitational potential energy calculations when gravity is not assumed to be a constant. The following sections provide more detail.''

from a classical POV, the thing you're missing is that potential energy, by itself, is sort of meaningless. it's the difference in potential energy between the two locations that matters.
 
The formula U=-G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r} obeys the convention that U is zero at 'infinity'.

The formula U = mgh uses the convention that U is zero when h = 0. And we could say that h = 0 at floor level, at ground level, at table-top level, or wherever suits us for solving a particular problem. Alternatively (and, for me, preferably) we can write the formula as ΔU = mgΔh, in which case we never concern ourselves about where U is zero. It should be said that the mgΔh formula only applies over regions where the field is uniform, for example near the Earth's surface, for Δh << radius of Earth. So it's no use for, say, calculating escape velocity or elliptical orbits.
 
Last edited:
I agree completely with Philip Wood...it would be much better if we used ΔU=mgΔh
There would be less confusion.
 
And note we could do the same thing over longer scales, just say ΔU = Gm1m2*Δ(1/r). Note for small Δ(1/r), those two formulae become the same. So it is as has been said-- only ΔU is meaningful.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
12K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K