Mistake in proof of gravitational potential equation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the gravitational potential equation and the confusion surrounding the use of distance variables. The initial approach incorrectly treats the distance from infinity to the mass Mp as a constant, while the correct method involves integrating the varying gravitational force from infinity to the final distance R. Participants emphasize that gravitational potential is defined as the work done per unit mass, and the integration accounts for the changing force as the mass moves closer to the planet. There is also mention of potential typos in the textbook that may contribute to the misunderstanding. Overall, a clear understanding of calculus and integration is essential for accurately deriving the gravitational potential equation.
dotcom
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
mistake in proof of gravitational potential equation?

Hi, I have a problem in deriving an equation for the gravitational potential.

Well, I think that the graviational potential is the work done by external forces in moving a unit mass Mp from infinity to that point through distance d, and so I converted the equation in this way:

when M is the mass of a planet creating the gravitational field and r is the distance between M and Mp,

V= (work done) / (mass)
=F.d / Mp
=(G*M*Mp/r^2)*d/ Mp

... and I got nowhere.

However, my text states that the distance from the infinity to the point mass Mp should be r as well. So the text says that

V= (work done) / (mass)
=F.r / Mp
=(G*M*Mp/r^2)*r/ Mp

and in this way the correct equation, V=-GM/r (negative sign is added afterwards) shows up.

But I don't understand why the text can set both the distance from the infinity to the point mass Mp and the distance between M and Mp as r.

To make the problem more complicated, my teacher has said that there might be a typo or two in the text, which makes the understanfing very difficult. So it might be included in this context, I don't know...

If anyone could explain me this, please help me by doing so...
I would really really appreciate your advise!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're on the right track and I think I see area of confusion,

it is much easier to understand using integration where force is expressed as function of distance and integrated from lower limit of infinity to upper limit of R.
But since at infinity Force is zero, this simplifies to

0-GMm/r^2*r see here if this is illegible:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html#ui
 
I was responding to this earlier and the electricty went down on me!

dotcom said:
Hi, I have a problem in deriving an equation for the gravitational potential.

Well, I think that the graviational potential is the work done by external forces in moving a unit mass Mp from infinity to that point through distance d, and so I converted the equation in this way:

when M is the mass of a planet creating the gravitational field and r is the distance between M and Mp,

V= (work done) / (mass)
=F.d / Mp
=(G*M*Mp/r^2)*d/ Mp
... and I got nowhere.
Work = F*d only for constant force. For a variable force, as here you need an integral. (If your textbook talks about the gravitational potential energy, surely it mentions integration? You don't say whether you know anything about Calculus.) Technically, you should integrate along the path the object actually takes. Fortunately, since gravitational force is "conservative", the work done moving from one point to another along ANY path depends only on the endpoints not on the particular path. By convention, gravitational potential energy is taken to be 0 at infinity so we can take the integral from infinity to R where R is the FINAL distance from M to Mp.

However, my text states that the distance from the infinity to the point mass Mp should be r as well. So the text says that

V= (work done) / (mass)
=F.r / Mp
=(G*M*Mp/r^2)*r/ Mp

and in this way the correct equation, V=-GM/r (negative sign is added afterwards) shows up.
Since the mass is MOVING, r, the distance from Mp to M changes. Use a different value, say R as I said abovee, to represent the distance between M and Mp in its FINAL position, the point at which you are finding the potential. In moving from "infinity" to its final distance from M, r changes from infinity to R.

But I don't understand why the text can set both the distance from the infinity to the point mass Mp and the distance between M and Mp as r.
It's not. r is always the distance between M and Mp but as the mass moves that distance changes from "infinity" to R.

To make the problem more complicated, my teacher has said that there might be a typo or two in the text, which makes the understanfing very difficult. So it might be included in this context, I don't know...

If anyone could explain me this, please help me by doing so...
I would really really appreciate your advise!
The force at any distance, r, from M is -GMpM/r2. If it moves a SHORT distance \delta r, so the force doesn't change much, the work done there is about (-GMpM/r^2)\delta r. To approximate the work over the entire path, add for each little step along the path (that's what's known as a Riemann sum). Taking the limit as you make each step smaller and smaller (and have more and more steps) that becomes the integral that gives the exact value:
-GM \int_{-\infty}^R \frac{dr}{r^2}
 
thanks Hall for adding rigor, and doing a darn good job of explaining integration in a couple of paragraphs. Thats the problem of doing math w/o calculus, its like trying to build a house without blueprints.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top