Gravitational Potential [Moved from Academic Guidance]

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of gravitational potential, specifically why it is often considered negative. Participants explore the conventions and definitions surrounding gravitational potential energy in various contexts, including free space and near the Earth's surface.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that gravitational potential is negative due to the choice of a reference point, typically where the potential is defined to be zero at infinity.
  • Others argue that the negative potential reflects the work done against gravity when moving an object from a gravitational field to a point where the potential is zero.
  • A participant notes that gravitational potential can be positive depending on the chosen coordinate system, particularly near the Earth's surface, where potential can be expressed as U=mgz+C.
  • One participant mentions a correction to a previous post regarding the sign convention of gravitational potential, emphasizing that it is negative by convention only in specific contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance and implications of the convention of negative gravitational potential. There is no consensus on whether this convention is merely convenient or holds deeper significance.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the choice of reference points and coordinate systems in defining gravitational potential, as well as the potential for confusion arising from these conventions.

kushal18
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
hey friends why is gravitational potential negative?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any potential energy (gravitational, electrical, ...) has an arbitrary constant term. Given some conservative force field F(x), any function U(x) for which

\nabla U({\boldsymbol{x}}) = -\,{\boldsymbol{F}}({\boldsymbol{x}})

is a potential energy function U(x) of the force field F(x). Adding a constant to U(x) yields another function Uc(x)=U(x)+c whose gradient is the force field. Bottom line: You can pick any value you want for that constant. One obvious choice for gravitational potential is to make the potential vanish as ||\boldsymbol x||\to\infty, in which case the potential for any finite x will be negative.
 
Last edited:
Gravitational is negative by convention. The potential of a body is free space without gravity is taken to be zero...hence near a gravitational mass,say a plant or star, since work must be done to move the body from a strong gravitational influence to free space where it's zero, we say gravity imposes a negative potential...

An analogous situation is on the surface of the earth...say on a beach where we take gravitational potential to be zero...climb out of a hole in the sand to reach zero potential...again gravitational potential is taken to be negative in the hole...

I've not come across a clear explanation as to whether this convention is significant or just convenient...I think idea this matches DH post above...
 
First things first: I corrected a sign error in my previous post.

Naty1 said:
Gravitational is negative by convention.
Only in the case of a body in free space.

Suppose I want to do elementary physics near the surface of the Earth. I'll choose coordinates such that the x and y axes are parallel to the surface and z is positive upwards. With this convention, the gravitational force is nearly constant:

\boldsymbol{F} \approx -mg \hat \boldsymbol z

The potential functions that generate this constant force field are of the form

U=mgz+C

Here, the "obvious" choice for a constant is C=0. In other words, u=mgz=mgh, which is what you were taught in elementary physics. Now potential is positive above the surface. So gravitation is not always negative by convention.
 
thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K