Gravitational potential energy questions

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational potential energy in a two-body system is described as a single term because it reflects the interaction between both bodies, rather than assigning separate energies to each. While each body can be considered to have its own potential energy, especially when one is significantly more massive, it is more practical to represent their combined energy in one term for simplicity. The derivation of escape velocity assumes a static Earth, which is valid for small objects like rockets, as larger objects would complicate the dynamics by affecting the Earth's position. The concept of gravitational potential energy is meaningful primarily in static scenarios, raising questions about its applicability in systems where all bodies are in motion. Overall, gravitational potential energy calculations often rely on the assumption of stationary reference points for accuracy.
andytrust
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I haven't learned a lot of physics and math, but I don't know how I misunderstand the following concepts:

Why is the gravitational potential energy of a system of two bodies described in one term instead of two? If each body in a two-body system effects a gravitational force on the other one, wouldn't both objects have their own gravitational potential energy (albeit they would be the same value), instead of sharing one energy?

My second question: The derivation for the escape velocity of an object at the Earth's surface (as found for instance on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#Derivation_using_G_and_M), seems to me to assume that the Earth remains static while the object is moving away from it. If the object were sufficiently large, wouldn't the Earth and its gravitational field move after it, making it harder for the object to escape the Earth's gravitational field, so that it would not reach infinity? Why doesn't this happen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
andytrust said:
Why is the gravitational potential energy of a system of two bodies described in one term instead of two? If each body in a two-body system effects a gravitational force on the other one, wouldn't both objects have their own gravitational potential energy (albeit they would be the same value), instead of sharing one energy?
I guess you could say that each object has its own gravitational potential energy that is half of the total. But that'd be more complicated than just having the one potential energy for the pair together.

Actually, this might be a better line of reasoning: in many cases, one of the two bodies will be stationary, or at least so massive (compared to the other) that it effectively doesn't move. Example: the Earth and a satellite. In those cases, it makes sense to say that one body (the smaller one) has its own individual potential energy. Essentially, you assign all the potential energy of the system to the smaller body. But in the general case, both bodies are free to move, and then it's impossible to define a potential energy for one body alone based only on that body's position. You have to incorporate the position of both bodies. So it just makes sense to assign the potential energy to the system of the two bodies, and not try to split it up between them.

Plus, the formula just works :wink:

andytrust said:
My second question: The derivation for the escape velocity of an object at the Earth's surface (as found for instance on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#Derivation_using_G_and_M), seems to me to assume that the Earth remains static while the object is moving away from it. If the object were sufficiently large, wouldn't the Earth and its gravitational field move after it, making it harder for the object to escape the Earth's gravitational field, so that it would not reach infinity? Why doesn't this happen?
You're right, the derivation does assume that the Earth remains fixed in place. Escape velocity is really only a meaningful concept in a static gravitational field - which in practice means, only for small things like rockets.
 
andytrust said:
Why is the gravitational potential energy of a system of two bodies described in one term instead of two?
The number of bodies doesn't matter. The gravitational potential energy difference between two points a and b, GPE(b) - GPE(a) is the negative of the work peformed by gravity when the object moves from a to b. For a finite number of finite sized bodies, GPE for one of those bodies at some point 'p', relative to the center of mass of the other bodies can be defined by defining GPE(∞) = 0, and then defining the potential energy at a point 'p' with respect to ∞, to be GPE(p) = GPE(∞) - GPE(p).

The derivation for the escape velocity of an object at the Earth's surface
This derivation ignores the mass of that object. The true escape velocity of a two body system, would require that the initial kinetic energy at point p be greater than or equal to GPE(p).
 
Last edited:
diazona said:
You're right, the derivation does assume that the Earth remains fixed in place. Escape velocity is really only a meaningful concept in a static gravitational field - which in practice means, only for small things like rockets.

Jeff Reid said:
The number of bodies doesn't matter. The gravitational potential energy difference between two points a and b, GPE(b) - GPE(a) is the negative of the work peformed by gravity when the object moves from a to b.

Thank you for clarifying this. I guess my question is: does it mean that when gravitational potential energy is calculated (I guess this also applies for electrical potential energy), you have to assume the object(s) doing the work remain stationary (in an inertial frame of reference)?
If that is so, does the idea of gravitational potential energy have any meaning in a system where all the bodies are moving?
 
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