Is Potential Energy Infinite at Any Point for Point Masses?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of potential energy for point masses in relation to gravitational forces. It highlights that using a reference point at the center of gravity leads to the conclusion that potential energy is infinite, suggesting a need for a different reference point. The commonly accepted reference is one infinitely far away, resulting in negative potential energy that becomes more negative as one approaches the center. The conversation also touches on the limitations of classical physics when applied to point masses, particularly at fundamental particle scales. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the complexities of defining potential energy in gravitational contexts.
MicroCosmos
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, first post here.

Today i crushed into a question. I was going to write it down here, then i crushed into another one.
Lets say we want to know the potential energy of a body relative to a center of gravity.
I will refer to gravitys acceleration as "g" and to mass as "m". "k" will be some constant unit.

If we take a near, lower height(h) as reference it would be "m·g·h" because g doesn't change with h.

But if i want to reference to the center of gravity, because of g(h) = k/h2, i can't use that anymore. I suppose i need ∫m*g(h) dh from 0 to the wanted height. That supposes potential energy is infinite at any point !

Some ideas? Am i doing something wrong?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The inverse square force law applies for point masses and for spherically symmetric masses acting on outside objects. Once an object dips into the interior of a gravitating body, the portion of the gravitating body higher in altitude than the object ceases to have any net effect. See Newton's spherical shell theorem.

So let's say that we are talking about a point mass. Then yes, the potential energy measured against a reference at the gravitating point is infinite. You can take that as a clue that you should be selecting a different reference point, that the laws of classical physics cannot hold for point objects or both.

The alternate reference point that is normally chosen is one infinitely far away. So that potential energy is always negative and gets more negative the closer you get to the center.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and MicroCosmos
Yes, i meant point masses. Okay, that clears everything, thank you very much!
 
jbriggs444 said:
So let's say that we are talking about a point mass. Then yes, the potential energy measured against a reference at the gravitating point is infinite. You can take that as a clue that you should be selecting a different reference point, that the laws of classical physics cannot hold for point objects or both.

Or that point masses don't really exist!
 
  • Like
Likes MicroCosmos and Dale
jtbell said:
Or that point masses don't really exist!
what ?
 
Fundamental particles like electrons are thought to be point masses. But classical mechanics breaks down at those scales.
 
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?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...

Similar threads

Back
Top