Potential associated with a conservative force field F

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between conservative force fields and potential energy. It establishes that the force can be derived from potential energy using the equation F = -∇U(r), and clarifies that while force, field, and potential are distinct concepts, they are interrelated. The electric field E is linked to the potential V through E = -∇V, and when a charge q is introduced, the force is given by F = qE. The potential is defined up to an arbitrary constant, often set to zero at infinity for convenience. Overall, the mathematical framework supports the correlation between these physical quantities while emphasizing their unique characteristics.
AntonioJ
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Given the potential energy, the force is obtained as F = -∇U(r). A conservative force field F is associated with a potential f by F = ∇f.
Relevant Equations
Does the first expression arise from this last one? If so, with -∇U(r), would one obtain the electric field E instead of the force F?
Given the potential energy, the force is obtained as F = -∇U(r). A conservative force field F is associated with a potential f by F = ∇f. Does the first expression arise from this last one? If so, with -∇U(r), would one obtain the electric field E instead of the force F?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
F=-\nabla U
is enough. I feel no necessity to introduce f of f=-U + const.
 
Force, field and potential are 3 different things. But can be correlated each other. Field like E is a space deformation (can be due to an extra charge for example) then some field like the electrostatic can be associated to potential V, E= -nabla V is correct. Then when comes another charge q in the field Coulomb law acts and F=qE. So you have U(r)= qV(r).
V is generally determined with a constant. For electrical field V=0 when r is infinite.
Mathematically this constant disappears in calculation (derivation or integration)
 
A force is a vector field, ##\vec{F}(\vec{x})##. If it's conservative, there exists a scalar potential, ##U##, then by definition
$$\vec{F}(\vec{x})=-\vec{\nabla} U(\vec{x}).$$
If ##\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{F}=0## in an open singly-connected neighborhood of a point, then there exists a potential (at least) in this neighborhood (Poincare's Lemma).

The potential is determined only up to an arbitrary additive constant. Indeed it's convenient to define it to go to 0 at infinity (if possible for the given force).
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top