Gravitational potential and partial derivatives app's

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational potential is a mathematical function that simplifies calculations related to gravitational forces, visualized as varying forces along a spatial curve. It must solve Laplace's partial differential equation (PDE) because this reflects the behavior of gravitational fields in empty space, where no sources are present. The function H, represented as H ∼ 1/r, satisfies this equation, indicating how gravitational potential diminishes with distance. The force derived from this potential, F = ∇H, relates to the gravitational interaction, with constants representing mass and gravitational strength. Understanding these concepts is crucial for applying mathematical principles to physics in economics and other fields.
stanley.st
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm a student of applied mathematics to economics. Basic course consists of all pure math subjects. We were talking about app's of differentiating the functions u:\mathbb{R}^{n}\to\mathbb{R}^m. We defined a gradient too. In my notes is written:

Gravitational potential is a function H:\mathbb{R}^{2}\to\mathbb{R} and it has to solve Laplace's PDR \Delta H=0.

Then we found out, that for example a function H=\frac{\mathrm{const.}}{\Vert x\Vert} solves that equation. Then there's a mystery in the form F\sim\nabla H\sim\Vert F\Vert=\kappa\frac{mM}{\Vert x\Vert}


QUESTIONS:
(1) Can you explain me, what is gravitational potential. Or how to imagine it.
(2) Why it must solve Laplace's PDR.
(3) Why F\sim\nabla H\sim\Vert F\Vert=\kappa\frac{mM}{\Vert x\Vert}?

Thank you in advance :-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stanley.st said:
QUESTIONS:
(1) Can you explain me, what is gravitational potential. Or how to imagine it.
(2) Why it must solve Laplace's PDR.
(3) Why F\sim\nabla H\sim\Vert F\Vert=\kappa\frac{mM}{\Vert x\Vert}?


(1) As you said, gravitational potential is a function of the spatial coordinates. The potential isn't any physical thing as such, but it's simply introduced to make the calculations easier. An easy way to visualize the potential is to think about an one dimensional case, where you just have a simple \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R} function. Now, as you move through space (x-axis) you feel different kind of forces depending on the gradient of the curve; your acceleration is the greatest where the slope of potential is largest etc. You can imagine yourself sitting on a sled, riding down the potential function if you like.

(2) That is just the way the world works. Laplace equation is the solution in empty space - usually you have a source term at the right hand side.

(3) H \sim 1/r (r = || x ||) is a solution for the laplacian, as you can easily show by solving the differential equation. Now, the force that a potential H induces is just F = \nabla H \sim \mathbf{r}/r^3 (you are missing one r). The constant in front just describes the strength of the gravitational interaction; the mass terms come from the right hand side of the equation, gravitational coupling constant tells what the strength of gravity is in the unit system we're using.
 
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