Potential Energy After Escape Velocity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of potential energy in the context of an object achieving escape velocity from a planet. When the object is launched, its kinetic energy is initially positive while its potential energy, relative to infinity, is negative due to the gravitational binding. As the object escapes the planet's gravity, its kinetic energy decreases while its potential energy approaches zero, maintaining a constant total energy. The potential energy doesn't disappear; rather, it is converted as the object moves away from the gravitational influence. This illustrates the relationship between kinetic and potential energy in gravitational systems.
metapad
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm not quite sure I'm understanding potential energy correctly. Let's say we have a runaway planet in deep space which is going in a perfectly straight line. The planet is perfectly spherical and doesn't have an atmosphere. If an object on the surface spontaneously (for the sake of simplicity as it's not the point) acquires a high upward velocity, it's kinetic energy should gradually be converted to potential energy as gravity slows it down, right? Well let's say that when the object was launched it had achieved escape velocity and eventually escapes the planet's gravity and drifts away from the planet. Let's say the object never gets caught in the planet's field of gravity again. Since it's not going to go near the planet again, where did all of that potential energy go? Energy can't be created or destroyed so the potential energy can't just simply disappear... I'm confused X_X
 
Physics news on Phys.org
metapad said:
Since it's not going to go near the planet again, where did all of that potential energy go? Energy can't be created or destroyed so the potential energy can't just simply disappear... I'm confused X_X

It went into its freedom :-)
Consider this: you have a debt. You also have an income. Your income is used to pay back that debt, so at a certain point, you've paid back everything. Your debt doesn't exist anymore. Where did all the money of your income go ?

What happens is that gravitationally (or otherwise) bound systems have a *negative* potential energy as compared to free systems. They must first pay back their debt of binding energy before they can be free. Otherwise they remain bound.
 
metapad said:
I'm not quite sure I'm understanding potential energy correctly. Let's say we have a runaway planet in deep space which is going in a perfectly straight line. The planet is perfectly spherical and doesn't have an atmosphere. If an object on the surface spontaneously (for the sake of simplicity as it's not the point) acquires a high upward velocity,
it's kinetic energy should gradually be converted to potential energy as gravity slows it down, right? Well let's say that when the object was launched it had achieved escape velocity and eventually escapes the planet's gravity and drifts away from the planet. Let's say the object never gets caught in the planet's field of gravity again. Since it's not going to go near the planet again, where did all of that potential energy go? Energy can't be created or destroyed so the potential energy can't just simply disappear... I'm confused X_X

the kinetic energy of the launched object is initially some positive number and the potential energy (relative to infinity) is some negative number. When the rocket is far away (never to be seen by the planet again) the kinetic energy is some smaller positive number and the potential energy is zero. The sum of the kinetic and potential energy is constant throughout the process.
 
Ohh... Suppose that makes sense. Thanks :P
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Escape Velocity Question: Why is the final kinetic energy = 0?
Replies
21
Views
5K
Escape velocity and kinetic energy
Replies
4
Views
2K
Velocity needed to escape gravitational potential
Replies
5
Views
1K
Why is the "escape velocity formula" the "escape velocity"?
Replies
6
Views
3K
How come escape velocity isn't imaginary?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Escape velocity and kinetic energy of the Earth
Replies
6
Views
2K
Variation of escape velocity with equal surface gravity
Replies
7
Views
1K
When would a rocket return that was at escape velocity
Replies
13
Views
9K
Is the usual Escape Velocity eqn an approximation?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Escape velocity (from the earth) of the Earth-Sun system
Replies
3
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top