Newton gravitational potential theory

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between two equations for gravitational potential energy: g.p.e = mgh and g.p.e = G(m1m2)/r. The original poster questions why these two expressions are not equal, particularly in the context of Newton's gravitational potential energy theory.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions and contexts of gravitational potential energy, noting that one equation measures absolute potential energy with respect to infinity while the other measures changes in potential energy near the Earth's surface. Questions arise about the validity of each equation under different conditions, particularly regarding uniformity of the gravitational field.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants clarifying the distinctions between the two equations and the contexts in which they apply. Some guidance has been provided regarding the nature of gravitational fields and the conditions under which each equation is valid.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the approximation of uniform gravitational fields being applicable only near the Earth's surface and the distinction between absolute and change in gravitational potential energy. The conversation reflects a mix of interpretations regarding the implications of these equations at varying distances from massive bodies.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
14K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K