Gravitational Potential Definition

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of gravitational potential, which is the work done per unit mass to bring a body from infinity to a point in a gravitational field. Participants question the use of "infinity" in the definition, noting its abstract nature and potential for confusion. The rationale for using infinity is that it simplifies calculations by establishing a reference point where gravitational potential is zero, thus eliminating a constant term. Some argue that a definition based on bringing a mass from the source to a point would be more intuitive. The conversation highlights the historical context of the term and the evolution of its understanding in physics.
scoutfai
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
In my textbook, the definition of the Gravitational Potential, V is defined as :" the gravitational potential of a point in a gravitational field is the work done per unit mass by the pull of gravity to bring a body from infinity to that point. "
Who make this definition ? As i know, infinity is a quite abstract concept, most of the time it causes confusion, hence, why physicist still choose to use "infinity" ? Is there any benefit they will get by using inifinity in the definition ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. The potential is zero at infinity so you lose a constant term from the equation. If infinity gives you problems just think of it as very very very very very far away.
 
Thanks for reply, inha.
Firstly, i don't understand what you mean by "lose a constant term from the equation" ?
Secondly, i believe you claim that the potential at infinity is zero because you base on that equation. Of course, if just base on the equation, even me also will claim that the potential at infinity is zero, this is the highest potential value, other potential will be negative value.
Now let's make some imagination, imagine that you are the first physicist who trying to give a definition to potential. A correct definition should able to imply something which consistent with the observed fact. One example is the potential will increases if the distant from the source is increased. Hence the lowest potential is when you are inside that point (nearest to the source). Normally, people will give the lowest value as zero and highest as infinity when deal with something just scalar. So, why don't you or the ancient physicist define potential as "the work done per unit mass to bring a mass from the source to that point." ?
I believe this definition is much easier! Don't forget that the potential concept was exist at the ancient time, you really think that the people at that time will have a complete understand of the word Infinity ?
Anyway, i believe there is some reasons why ancient physicist choose to use inifinity, but what is it ?
 
I meant that when you calculate the said work done by gravitation the term U(\infty) is zero. Did you mean gravitational potential energy btw?
 
I see. No i don't mean gravitational potential energy, i mean gravitational potential. (but this is not a big problem, gravitational potential energy is really an energy value while the gravitational potential is energy per mass, that is all.)
Could you give some comment on my second part of the previous message!
 
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