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.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top