Newton gravitational potential theory

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between two formulas for gravitational potential energy (GPE): GPE = mgh and GPE = -G(m1m2/r). The first equation measures the change in GPE in a uniform gravitational field, applicable near the Earth's surface, while the second represents absolute GPE with respect to infinity. The two equations are not equal because they serve different purposes and apply under different conditions. The uniformity of the gravitational field is crucial for the mgh equation, while the G(m1m2/r) equation is valid for spherical and point masses. Understanding these differences is essential for accurately applying gravitational potential energy concepts in physics.
look416
Messages
87
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


we all know to measure g.p,e(gravitational potential enery) we would likely to use g.p.e = mgh,
however from the theory of Newton gravitational potential energy theory, g.p.e = G\frac{m1m2}{r}, my lecturer told me that mgh is not equal to G\frac{m1m2}{r}


Homework Equations


my question is anyone know why they are not equal?


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
First and foremost, -G\frac{m_{1}\,m_{2}}{r} measures the gravitational potential energy of the object with respect to infinity, at which the GPE is chosen to be zero. It is the absolute GPE as we define in physics.

\Delta GPE = mg\Delta h is the true form of the gpe = mgh equation that you mentioned. This makes it clear that we are measuring the change in gpe and NOT the true gpe. It must also be noted that this formula holds only for uniform gravitational fields. In the case of objects on the earth, then it only applies for distances close to the surface of the Earth where we can approximate the gravitational field to be uniform.

Obviously the gravitational field of the Earth is not uniform, and so we can apply the approximation only in certain situations.
 
Last edited:
fightfish
if you say so, the both equation are valid when the object is near the gravitational sink, however both equation are not equal to each other when the object is far from the gravitational sink as the gravitational field is not uniform?
 
I stand corrected with my initial choice of words, which were a bit clumsy and awkward admittedly. The earlier post has been edited to reflect a more appropriate exposition.

It's not a matter of being close to a gravitational 'sink' - I was overgeneralising a bit there - but more so of the nature of the gravitational field present. It happens that at small distances from the surface of the Earth (or any massive body) (and over a small region of space), the gravitational field can be approximated as being uniform.

I stress again that both equations do not mean the same thing: the first measures the absolute gpe wrt infinity as the zero point, while the latter measures the change in gpe. The first equation holds for spherical and point masses, whereas the latter holds for uniform gravitational fields.
 
oh now you make me clear of it by stressing the last part
XD
 
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