Is energy always positive and dependent on observer's frame of reference?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter qbslug
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Positive
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of energy, specifically whether energy must always be positive and how it relates to the observer's frame of reference. Participants explore concepts of potential and kinetic energy, their definitions, and the implications of reference points in different physical contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that energy is often thought to be positive, yet negative energies arise from the choice of reference points, particularly in potential energy.
  • It is proposed that the reference potential can be set based on convenience and the specific physics being analyzed, leading to different signs for potential energy depending on the charge in electrodynamics.
  • One participant questions whether the singularity at the origin is the reason for not setting potential energy to zero there, to which others confirm this understanding.
  • There is a distinction made between kinetic energy, which is said to always be positive due to speed being a scalar quantity, and potential energy, which can take on negative values depending on the reference point chosen.
  • Another participant raises the idea that kinetic energy is observer-dependent according to relativity, suggesting a symmetry where potential energy depends on the reference point for potential and kinetic energy depends on the observer's velocity.
  • A specific case involving liquid mirror telescopes is introduced, where kinetic and potential energies exhibit a symmetrical relationship based on the shape of the liquid's surface and its rotational dynamics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and differing views on the nature of energy, particularly regarding the conditions under which potential and kinetic energies are defined. The discussion remains unresolved on some aspects, particularly the implications of observer dependence and the significance of reference points.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the physical significance of potential energy is tied to differences rather than absolute values, and there are unresolved questions about the implications of reference frames in defining energy types.

qbslug
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I was under the impression that energy had to be positive. Yet it seems we are still forced to use negative energies since we set the potential to be 0 at an infinite distance away. And the only reason we don't set the potential energy to zero at the origin of the source is because there is a singularity there? Is that correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Sometimes, sometimes the potential at infinity will be infinite. Since most applications focus on the potential difference, how we set the reference potential is mainly defined by the physics we wish the potential to demonstrate and what is convenient to use as a reference. In addition, setting infinity to be our zero reference does not guarantee negative potentials. In electrodynamics, the potential from a charge will have different signs depending on the sign of the charge.
 


qbslug said:
And the only reason we don't set the potential energy to zero at the origin of the source is because there is a singularity there? Is that correct?

Yes, that's right. When the potential at the origin is finite, it is usually set to zero.
 


qbslug said:
I was under the impression that energy had to be positive.
Potential energy does not need to be positive. Where you choose your reference point and the potential energy value that you assign at your reference point has no physical significance whatsoever. Only potential differences are physically meaningful.

Kinetic energy does need to be positive (because the speed is always positive). Perhaps that is what you are thinking about.
 


thanks for clearing that up.
So absolute kinetic energy by itself has physical meaning but only potential energy difference have physical meaning? I thought there would be some conceptual symmetry between the two.
Doesn't kinetic energy of an object also depend on the speed of the observer though according to relativity?
So we can say potential energy depends where we set potential to 0 and kinetic energy depends on the velocity of observer (where we set velocity to 0)?
 


qbslug said:
thanks for clearing that up.
So absolute kinetic energy by itself has physical meaning but only potential energy difference have physical meaning? I thought there would be some conceptual symmetry between the two.
Doesn't kinetic energy of an object also depend on the speed of the observer though according to relativity?
So we can say potential energy depends where we set potential to 0 and kinetic energy depends on the velocity of observer (where we set velocity to 0)?

There is a particular case where kinetic energy and potential energy are in a rather symmetrical relation to each other: the physics of liquid mirror telescopes (or more generally the shape of the surface of a rotating liquid.)

In the case of a liquid mirror telescope the liquid is usually mercury, as it reflects so well. The first attempts at making a mercury mirror used a bowl filled with mercury, positioned on a turntable that was spinning as uniformly as possible.

The surface of the liquid then assumes a shape with a parabolic cross section. For particles at the surface the following is valid:
- The kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the distance to the central axis of rotation.
- The potential energy is proportional to the square of the distance to the central axis of rotation.

In this case, if you define the lowest point, (the center point) as zero point of potential energy, then at each distance to the central axis of rotation kinetic energy and potential energy have the same value.

The parabolic shape is the shape with the property of that kinetic/potential energy equilibrium. For instance, when there is a sudden change in spinning rate the liquid will ripple and wobble, but if the spinning rate remains uniform the liquid will once again settle into an equilibrium state.

Cleonis
 


qbslug said:
Doesn't kinetic energy of an object also depend on the speed of the observer though according to relativity?
So we can say potential energy depends where we set potential to 0 and kinetic energy depends on the velocity of observer (where we set velocity to 0)?
Yes, definitely.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K