Potential energy greater total energy in the system?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between potential energy (PE) and total energy (TE) in a classical mechanics context. The confusion arises from a graph where the TE line is consistently below the PE curve, suggesting that PE exceeds TE at several points. It is clarified that in classical mechanics, movement is restricted to regions where TE is less than PE, indicating "forbidden" zones where kinetic energy would be negative. The conversation emphasizes that while PE can take on negative values in certain contexts, such as gravitational potential energy, this does not apply to systems like springs where negative potential energy indicates a problem. Overall, the thread highlights the importance of understanding energy conventions and constraints in classical mechanics.
shredder666
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
First of all this is not a HW question, I already "handed" the assignment in and its graded

There was this question on my assignment, it asked questions off of a graph that had distance on the x-axis and energy on the y axis.
The potential energy was a curve, and basically took up the entire page.
the total energy was just a horizontal line and intercepts the PE curve at several points.

But the strange thing was that the TE line was below the PE curve at several intervals. Which just totally confuse me, cus the potential energy is greater than the total energy... or is that some sort of convention that i don't know about
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From a classical point of view, the movement of the object is restricted to the zone where total energy is less than potential energy.
The other regions are "forbidden" in the sense that, within those zones, the kinetic energy is less tan zero and it would lead to an imaginary speed.
QM predicts another behavior, but I think you're looking for a "classical" answer
 
yes, I am looking an answer that does not involve the word "quantum".
So I don't get why that portion is there, is it some sort of bad question making?
 
The potential energy is a function eg. the potential energy for a linear simple harmonic oscillator is 1/2kx2---the function is real for all real x---- but there are constraints on x put by limits of total energy. But the potential energy is still a function and it can have the corresponding value for an x that gives an imaginary speed----if that were possible.
 
shredder666 said:
But the strange thing was that the TE line was below the PE curve at several intervals. Which just totally confuse me, cus the potential energy is greater than the total energy... or is that some sort of convention that i don't know about
For gravitational potential energy the potential energy function is liner U=mgh. It can get negative.In order to lift something at point p1 that is below your reference point at O set to 0 you must do work w=-mgh(h distance from p1 to O).Since gravitation is a conservative force and you are measuring with respect to some point the increase in Kinetic energy from O to p1 is equal to w so your total energy will be unchanged.No problems and no quantums.For a spring this is not possible since U=(1/2)kx^2 so if you get -U there is a problem..
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top