Gravity conservation / gravitational forces

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational forces are classified as conservative because they conserve total mechanical energy, meaning the work done by gravity is path-independent and depends only on the initial and final heights. A conservative force can be expressed as the gradient of a potential function, distinguishing it from non-conservative forces like friction, which dissipate energy as heat. When moving an object vertically, the work done by gravity remains the same regardless of the path taken, as demonstrated by the example of lifting a ball from height A to height B. This characteristic is fundamental to understanding gravitational interactions in physics. The discussion clarifies the nature of conservative forces and their implications in energy conservation.
Jadaav
Messages
175
Reaction score
1
Why are gravitational forces said to be conservative ?

What does conservative mean here ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's the mathy definition: A conservative force is one that can be expressed as the gradient of a potential function. If that's over your head, a conservative force is a force that conserves (does not change) total mechanical energy (kinetic energy plus potential energy).

It might help to look at forces that aren't conservative. Friction is the canonical example of a non-conservative force. Instead of converting kinetic energy into potential energy (or vice versa), friction converts kinetic energy into heat.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Conservative forces are forces for which the work done moving a particle under the effect of the said force (\int \textbf{F}\cdot \textrm{d}\textbf{r}) is path-independent.

Example: Say a (reasonably point-like) object is lifted from a desk. When looking at the work done, it doesn't matter how much it's moved horizontally, as gravity is a conservative force: The work done is solely determined by the height of the surface and the height of the point the object ends up at. This is not true for all forces. Moving the same object along a surface with friction, like the surface of the said desk, requires more work the longer the path is.

(A vector field \textbf{F} is in fact conservative if any of the following, equivalent conditions are fulfilled: \nabla \times \textbf{F}=0, \exists V s.t. \textbf{F}=-\nabla V (the existence of a potential), \oint \mathbf{F}\cdot \textrm{d}\textbf{r}=0)
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Jadaav said:
Why are gravitational forces said to be conservative ?
Say you have a ball and you want to move it from height ##A## to height ##B##. Just for fun, you take a crazy zig-zag path to get from ##A## to ##B## (pretend you just had tons of coffee and are insanely hyperactive xD). Will the work done by gravity during this process be the same or different than the work done by gravity if you simply moved the ball in a straight line down from ##A## to ##B##?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks a lot D H, DeIdeal and WannabeNewton :)

It's clear to me now.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top