Potential energy: where is the error in my logic?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of gravitational potential energy and the logic behind it. The user initially struggles with the negative sign in their expression for potential energy, questioning whether their understanding of gravitational potential energy as the work needed to escape a gravitational field is flawed. They realize that the potential energy is defined relative to a reference point, specifically that it is zero at infinity. The user clarifies that when calculating work done by gravity, the integral yields a negative value when moving from a distance R to infinity, indicating work done by gravity, while reversing the limits gives a positive value, representing work done against gravity. Ultimately, they confirm their understanding that gravitational potential energy is related to the work done in moving an object within the gravitational field.
Nikitin
Messages
734
Reaction score
27
1) For gravitational potential energy: ##F(r)=-\frac{\gamma M m}{r^2}##.

2) For potential energy of a conservative force-field: ##-\nabla E_p = F##. So the gradient of the potential energy is always equal to the force in that direction, just with the opposite sign. So when you move in the direction of the force, the potential energy decreases, but if you move against it the potential energy will increase.

3) Thus to find the gravitational potential energy as a function of r, I just need to find how much work I need to do to carry a particle from a distance r to infinitely away from the source of the gravitational force. ##dE_p = -\vec{F(r)} \cdot \vec{dr} \Rightarrow E_p(r) = -\int_r^{\infty} -\frac{\gamma M m}{r^2} dr = \frac{\gamma M m}{r}##

Uhh and so I get an expression with the opposite sign of what I'm supposed to get. Help? Can somebody point out the flaw of my logic?

EDIT: Is my flaw that gravitational potential energy is NOT defined as how much work is needed to make something escape the gravitational field? If so, can somebody correct my line of thinking?

EDIT2: Oops I forgot that ##-\int_r^{\infty} -\frac{\gamma M m}{r^2} dr = \frac{\gamma M m}{r} = E_p(\infty)-E_p(r)##, and not just ##E_p(r)##. Okay, so since the pot. energy is equal to zero at ##E_p(\infty)##, I'm all set?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you take the integral ∫F.dr you get -GMm \int_R^{\infty} \frac{1}{r^2} dr

1/r vanishes in the limit where r→∞ so we just have -\frac{GMm}{R} which is the work done by gravity moving from R to ∞.

If we swap the limits around to get the work done by gravity moving from ∞ to R then we get a positive value. Gravity does work moving towards the source of the field and we have to do work against gravity in the other direction.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged 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