Do Satellites with Greater Mass Have Lower Gravitational Potential Energy?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the gravitational potential energy (GPE) of satellites with differing masses. The original poster questions whether a satellite with greater mass has higher GPE, referencing the formula for GPE and expressing confusion regarding the implications of negative values in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the relationship between mass and GPE, questioning the implications of negative GPE values. Some participants explore the significance of reference points in defining GPE, suggesting that the choice of reference affects the comparison of potential energies.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of gravitational potential energy and the implications of reference points. Some guidance has been offered regarding the conventional choice of zero potential energy at infinity, but no consensus has been reached on the original poster's understanding.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of arbitrary reference points in the discussion, particularly the Earth's surface versus infinity, which may influence the interpretation of gravitational potential energy in the context of satellites.

semc
Messages
364
Reaction score
5
Negative GPE?

hmm...i came across this qn which ask whether a satellite which has twice the mass of the other will have a higher gravitational potnetial energy...so the formula for GPE will be -GMm/r right? i deduce that since the mass of satellite i greater it will posses greater GPE but i was wrong :cry: :cry:
the reason i got was the satellite with bigger mass will have a more negative GPE so its GPE is lower so i was wondering is this really the case? i thought that the magnitude of the GPE tells you how much PE the object posses in the orbit?

Thanks :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
semc said:
hmm...i came across this qn which ask whether a satellite which has twice the mass of the other will have a higher gravitational potnetial energy...so the formula for GPE will be -GMm/r right? i deduce that since the mass of satellite i greater it will posses greater GPE but i was wrong :cry: :cry:
the reason i got was the satellite with bigger mass will have a more negative GPE so its GPE is lower so i was wondering is this really the case? i thought that the magnitude of the GPE tells you how much PE the object posses in the orbit?

Thanks :biggrin:
It is difficult to compare things that have arbitrary reference points. If you defined the potential energy of both objects to be zero at the surface of the earth, then the more massive object would have greater GPE than the less massive object everywhere above the earth. The Earth's surface is not a convenient reference point for orbital systems, so the convention is to define GPE to be zero at an infinite distance from the earth. The more massive satelite's GPE will increase at a faster rate as altitude increases. For both to have zero GPE at infinity, the more massive satellite must have less at any finite altitude. This is consistent with the expression you wrote that is based on the conventional choice of reference that GPE = 0 at infinity.
 
alrite thanks got it...maybe i can argue with my teacher that i am taking reference from surface of Earth!
 
semc said:
alrite thanks got it...maybe i can argue with my teacher that i am taking reference from surface of Earth!
Actually, you would be on firm footing if you did, though I'm not recommending it. Only changes in potential energy have physicsal significance. The choice of reference point is completely arbitrary, and a matter of convenince. There are good reasons for choosing the reference of zero at infinity, but obviously we often choose the zero to be elsewhere when we are doing problems near the Earth's surface.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K