Show how gravitational potential varies between the earth and the moon

AI Thread Summary
Gravitational potential is a scalar quantity, and while it is always negative, it can vary in value depending on the distance from the masses involved. The gravitational potential at the Earth's surface is -63 MJ/kg, while at the Moon's surface it is -2 MJ/kg. When considering the gravitational potential between the Earth and the Moon, the total potential at any point is the sum of the potentials from both bodies, which can lead to a point where the gravitational potentials cancel each other out. This results in a peak in gravitational potential that is still negative but less so than at other points. Understanding this concept clarifies how gravitational influences from multiple masses interact.
question dude
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement

gravitational potential at surface of the Earth = -63MJkg-1
gravitational potential at surface of the moon = -2MJkg-1The attempt at a solution

I thought gravitational potential was a scalar, so in which case, you would surely just add up the potential due from both masses at any point along the line between them to show how the 'resultant' potential varies between them

apparently, that isn't the case, and I suppose that does make sense, because the two masses are pulling in opposite direction. Gravitational potential is the amount of energy you would have to put into escape from the gravitational influence of a particular mass, and if you already have a force 'assisting' you (gravity due from another mass on the other side of you), then you don't require as much energy. Is this way of thinking right?

but I'm really puzzled by the mark scheme:

''Gravitational potential is a scalar quantity. The total potential at any point along a line joining the Earth and Moon is the sum of the potentials produced by the Earth and Moon separately''

doesn't ''sum of'' means you add up the two quantities. So in which case, how would you get a 'peak' in gravitational potential somewhere between the Earth and the moon whereby the gravitational potential is at its least negative?

if you add a negative value to a negative value, you get even larger negative value, so I'm slightly confuse
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The potential is a scalar, but not constant, at any point it is inversely proportional to the distance from its source. It is always negative, approaching zero infinitely far away.
 
question dude said:
I thought gravitational potential was a scalar, so in which case, you would surely just add up the potential due from both masses at any point along the line between them to show how the 'resultant' potential varies between them
Yep. That's correct.

question dude said:
doesn't ''sum of'' means you add up the two quantities. So in which case, how would you get a 'peak' in gravitational potential somewhere between the Earth and the moon whereby the gravitational potential is at its least negative?

if you add a negative value to a negative value, you get even larger negative value, so I'm slightly confuse
Yes. So the gravitational potential is going to be negative. What is wrong with having a 'peak' that is still less than zero?
 
BruceW said:
Yep. That's correct.


Yes. So the gravitational potential is going to be negative. What is wrong with having a 'peak' that is still less than zero?

so at the point where the two masses' gravitational field strength cancel, say if the gravitatiional potential due from one mass was -60MJkg-1 and the gravitational potential due from the other mass is -40MJkg-1, the resultant potential at this point would be -100MJkg-1?
 
yeah, that's it. I haven't worked out the values for this specific problem, but, yes, that is the right idea.
 
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 .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top