How Does the Integral of Force Relate to Potential Energy?

AI Thread Summary
Potential energy in a one-dimensional force field is defined as the negative integral of force with respect to position, expressed as U(x) = -∫F(x)dx. This relationship applies specifically to conservative forces, where objects tend to move from high to low potential energy, influenced by the force acting on them. The connection between potential energy and kinetic energy is highlighted through the work-energy theorem, indicating that potential energy represents the work done by conservative forces. Essentially, potential energy quantifies the energy associated with an object's position, while kinetic energy relates to its motion. This framework is fundamental to classical mechanics and illustrates the conservation of mechanical energy.
Hertz
Messages
180
Reaction score
8
In my physics class, my teacher has been referring to Potential Energy in a 1D force field as the negative integral of the force with respect to position.

AKA:
U(x)=-\int{F(x)dx}
where U is the potential energy at x and F is the force at x.

Can someone please explain this to me in conceptual terms?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure - look at the relationship between gravitational potential energy and gravitational force.
Note: the rule only applies to conservative forces.

Objects like to go from high potential energy to low potential energy ...
In Newtonian mechanics, we describe this by saying the object experiences a force.
By thinking about how the change in potential relates to the instantanious acceleration you shoud be able to spot the connection.

You can also think of it in terms of the work energy relation ... where the force changes with position.
 
The "potential energy" is the amount of kinetic energy that would be gained if the object returned to where it started (without friction or other losses).

So think of kinetic energy is the energy of motion, and potential energy is the energy of "where things are".
 
That's just a definition. The potential energy is defined as (minus one) times the work done by the conservative force when moving the particle from some reference level. Combining that with the work-energy theorem gives you mechanical energy conservation.
 
It's an interesting "definition" if it describes real physics! Certainly it is sufficient for classical mechanics.

Definitions typically follow axioms or theorems, and give names to those results. So in that since potential energy is the "definition" of the quantity described by the work energy theorem.
 
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