- #1

- 108

- 0

I would have thought that this would mean that gravity would cause objects to be repeled from each other

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Jack
- Start date

This is likely a reference to the fact that gravitational potential energy is considered to have a negative value, such as -GMm/r.

- #1

- 108

- 0

I would have thought that this would mean that gravity would cause objects to be repeled from each other

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

- 3,786

- 1,795

If so, the reasoning goes like this.

The total energy of a mass in a gravitational field is equal to the sum of its kinetic energy and its gravitaitonal energy with respect to the gravity field.

Any mass in free-fall has a constant total energy. (it just trades off kinetic energy for gravitational energy, or vice-versa)

An object moving at exactly escape velocity is considered to have zero total energy.(an object tossed up at escape velocity won't slow to a stop until it is an infinite distance away. conversely, escape velocity is equal to the velocity an object would hit the surface of a planet, if it were dropped from an infinite distance and at rest with respect to the planet.

If an object is at rest, it has zero kinetic energy. If it is an infinite disatnce away, it feels no gravitational pull from the planet, so it has zero gravitational potential with respect to the planet.

Zero + zero = zero total energy.

As the object moves towards the planet, it gains kinetic energy. in order for the total energy to remain constant, the Gravitational potential must decrease by the same amount. Since it starts at zero, it must go negative as you near the planet.

The mathematical reason is that to get gravitational potential, you integrate the formula for gravitational force (f= GMm/r²) with respect to r and get -GMm/r.

- #3

- 333

- 1

I think that this is not quite right (the bolded text).Originally posted by Janus

If an object is at rest, it has zero kinetic energy. If it is an infinite disatnce away,it feels no gravitational pull from the planet, so it has zero gravitational potential with respect to the planet.

Zero + zero = zero total energy.

Please correct me if i am wrong, but the absense of gravitational pull does not mean the absense of gravitational potential energy.

Since the gravitational potential energy is compared to a refference point, it is likely to have an object that is not being affected by a gravitational energy, but still has gravitational potential energy.

It is conventional to take infinity as a refference point for gravitational potential energy, therefore we say that the object has Zero potential energy at infinity.

(so .. am i right ?)

- #4

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,276

- 41

You can think of this fairly easily with a couple of magnets -- for the purpose of this discussion the magnetic attraction is just like gravity.

When the magnets are far apart (in the ideal case, infinitely far apart), you declare that the potential energy between them is zero. (You're free to assign the zero anywhere you'd like.)

Now bring the magnets together. When you pull the magnets apart, you have to do work. Physicists, by convention, say that work done ON a system is positive, and work done BY a system is negative. In this case, to pull the magnets apart, you have to put in energy, so you have to do positive work.

Think about that for a second: when the magnets are separated, they have zero potential energy. If they are together, you have to add energy to get them back apart. If you have to add energy to get back to zero (separated), then the magnets must have negative potential energy when they're together.

- Warren

- #5

- 3,121

- 4

- #6

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,276

- 41

What does this have to do with the definition of gravitational potential energy?Originally posted by Loren Booda

- Warren

- #7

- 3,121

- 4

The original post mentions nothing about gravitational *potential* energy.

Share:

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 691

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 49

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 402

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K