Gradient theorem, why F=-grad(U) ?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter amiras
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gradient Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between the mathematical expression F = grad(U) and the physical expression F = -grad(U). In mathematics, the gradient represents the direction of steepest ascent, while in physics, the negative gradient indicates the direction of force acting against potential energy. This difference is crucial for understanding conservative forces, as only conservative forces can be represented as gradients of scalar fields. The sign flip accounts for the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy in physical contexts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of line integrals in mathematics
  • Familiarity with gradient fields and scalar fields
  • Knowledge of conservative and non-conservative forces
  • Basic principles of potential and kinetic energy
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Fundamental Theorem of Line Integrals
  • Explore the concept of conservative forces in physics
  • Learn about the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy
  • Investigate Newton's Third Law and its implications in force fields
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics and physics, particularly those studying mechanics and vector calculus, will benefit from this discussion. It is also valuable for anyone seeking to understand the application of gradients in both mathematical and physical contexts.

amiras
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I am having difficulties to understand why in mathematics when calculating line integrals using gradient theorem we use F=grad(U), and in physics it is always F=-grad(U)? It seems important to me, because I may end up getting answer with opposite sign.

Is it somehow related to Newton's third law?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Only those forces we call "conservative" will be gradients of scalar fields.
You'll meet other types of forces that are not conservative, for example forces of friction.
 
If we put them into a common context, then F is a force field. A line integral of F represents the work done by the force field on a free particle that traverses that path. The amount of work done is equal to the particle's gain in kinetic energy, which is equal to its loss of potential energy. So when physicists flip the sign, they are accounting for changes in potential energy rather than changes in kinetic energy.

Outside this physical context, there is no reason to flip the sign. You just use the fundamental theorem of line integrals.
 
Vargo said:
If we put them into a common context, then F is a force field. A line integral of F represents the work done by the force field on a free particle that traverses that path. The amount of work done is equal to the particle's gain in kinetic energy, which is equal to its loss of potential energy. So when physicists flip the sign, they are accounting for changes in potential energy rather than changes in kinetic energy.

Outside this physical context, there is no reason to flip the sign. You just use the fundamental theorem of line integrals.

Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted!
 
Because forces point downhill. In math, the purer idea is uphill.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K