Gravitational potential energy question -- Ojbect sitting on the Earth

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of gravitational potential energy in the context of an object resting on the surface of the Earth. Participants explore the implications of defining the system as either the object alone or the object-Earth system, examining how potential energy is attributed and how it changes with the configuration of the system.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that when considering an object and the Earth as a system, the gravitational potential energy belongs to the system rather than just the object.
  • Others argue that since the object's mass is much less than that of the Earth, it is common to simplify the discussion by attributing potential energy primarily to the object.
  • A participant questions the attribution of potential energy solely to the object by suggesting that moving the Earth away while leaving the object unchanged alters the potential energy, indicating it does not belong exclusively to the object.
  • Another participant highlights that if the object is considered alone, one could equally argue that the Earth has the potential energy, leading to the conclusion that the potential energy is a property of the two-component system.
  • It is noted that when the object falls, it gains kinetic energy due to the work done by the Earth, which reflects a transfer of energy within the two-component system rather than a loss of potential energy in isolation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the attribution of gravitational potential energy, with no consensus reached on whether it belongs to the object, the Earth, or the system as a whole.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of defining systems and potential energy, emphasizing the importance of careful language and consideration of system boundaries in discussions of energy transfer.

Vash25
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Good day,

If I consider my system to be an object and the earth, and the object is on the surface of the earth, then the system will have gravitational potential energy. Why couldn't I say that only the object (considering it as my system) has gravitational potential energy?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vash25 said:
If I consider my system to be an object and the earth, and the object is on the surface of the earth, then the system will have gravitational potential energy. Why couldn't I say that only the object (considering it as my system) has gravitational potential energy?
We often say this as an short hand, when the object is much less massive than the Earth, so when it's released the potential energy of Earth & object goes almost exclusively into the object's kinetic energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72 and Vash25
Vash25 said:
Why couldn't I say that only the object (considering it as my system) has gravitational potential energy?
Leave the object where it is and move the Earth away. The object is unchanged but the potential energy changes. Therefore the potential energy does not belong to the object.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vash25
Vash25 said:
Why couldn't I say that only the object (considering it as my system) has gravitational potential energy?
If you could say that, then you would be equally justified to say that the Earth (when considered as your system) will have the potential energy and not the object. So which is it that "has" the potential energy, the object or the Earth? The answer is neither, the potential energy belongs to the two-component Earth-object system. When the common potential energy changes, so does the kinetic energy of the system's components. The correct mechanical energy conservation to write in this case is (subscripts o = object and E = Earth) $$\Delta K_{\text{o}}+\Delta K_{\text{E}}+\Delta U_{\text{o+E}}=0.$$It's only because the Earth's vertical speed does not change noticeably over the time that the object falls, that we ignore the Earth's change in kinetic energy as commented by @A.T.

You can separate the two and consider the object as a single-component system, but you have to be careful of what you say and how. If you drop the object when it alone is your system, it does not lose potential energy and gain kinetic energy as sometimes is the claim. The dropped object gains kinetic energy because the Earth does positive work on it through the force of gravity. This positive work is equal to the loss of potential energy of the two-component system. To summarize, you can think of the transfer of energy to the object as taking place internally in the two-component system and externally in the single-component system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72, Vash25, vanhees71 and 1 other person

Similar threads

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