Hi, all. A friend challenged me to prove that F = -grad(U), and now that I did, I'm thinking of submitting it to the university I'm applying to. Before I do so, I want to see if this is right.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Theorem: For a particle in a conservative force field, F = -grad(U).

Proof: In a conservative force field, the potential energy is depends only on the coordinates of the particle, and not on its velocity. Using the Euler-Lagrange equation,

[tex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x_{i}} - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}_{i}} = 0[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}[T(\dot{x}_{i}) - U(x_{i})] - \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{x}_{i}}[T(\dot{x}_{i}) - U(x_{i})] = 0[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial U}{\partial x_{i}} + \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{x}_{i}} = 0[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial U}{\partial x_{i}} + \frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{x}_{i}}(\frac{1}{2} m \sum \dot{x}_{i}^{2}) = 0[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial U}{\partial x_{i}} + \frac{d}{dt} m\dot{x}_{i} = 0[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial U}{\partial x_{i}} = - m\ddot{x}_{i} = -F_{i}[/tex]

[tex]\textbf{F} = -\nabla \textbf{U}.[/tex] QED.

Does this seem like a good proof?

One thing that I'm worried about is if I overlooked that F = -grad(U) is actually a requirement for the Euler-Lagrange equation to work, and that through this "proof" I might just be making a redundant statement that really doesn't prove anything. Please tell me this isn't true.

Also, is there anything I can do to make it cleaner or more professional? Thanks!

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Proof of F = -grad(U)?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**