Sign of potential term in Lagrangian mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of choosing the zero point for potential energy in Lagrangian mechanics, particularly how this choice affects the equations of motion (EOM) for different systems, such as gravitational and atomic systems. Participants explore the consequences of assigning different signs to potential energy terms and the resulting impact on the formulation of the Lagrangian.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of assigning a positive potential energy value and its effect on the EOM, suggesting that it leads to different results for free-fall objects and electrons in atoms.
  • Another participant prompts a calculation to compare the EOM derived from different potential energy formulations, specifically contrasting T - V with T - V + a constant.
  • A different participant asserts that the zero point of potential energy can be arbitrary, but emphasizes that while constants can be added to potential energy, the sign of the potential cannot be flipped without altering the physics involved.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding gravitational potential energy (GPE) conventions, noting that both conventions lead to an increase in potential energy with height or distance, despite differing formulations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the implications of changing the sign of potential energy. While some acknowledge the arbitrariness of the zero point, others argue that the sign itself cannot be altered without affecting the underlying physics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these differing viewpoints.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding how potential energy conventions relate to the equations of motion, particularly in cases where multiple terms are involved. The discussion does not resolve the nuances of these relationships or the assumptions underlying the different potential energy formulations.

Admiralibr123
Messages
14
Reaction score
5
I have heard many times that it does not matter where you put the zero to calculate the potential energy and then ##L=T-V##. But mostly what we are doing is taking potential energy negative like in an atom for electron or a mass in gravitational field and then effectively adding it to kinetic energy. What if I take zero at the centre of atom and on the surface of earth, write ##V## positive and subtract if in lagrangian. I try that and EOM is different something like $$F=ma=-mg$$ for a free fall object. If I change it for a charge an electron in atom something similar happens.

Please someone explain, does $$F=-mg \quad \textrm{vs} \quad F=+mg$$ not matter? This is just a single term but if the EOM have multiple terms, this sign would surely make a difference. And in essence to me, it feels like it voids the negative sign in ##L=T-V##, if we can choose any sign for V. That must definitely not be the case, so where am I wrong in my reasoning?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
Calculate the equations of motion for T - V and T - V + a constant. Any difference?
 
You seem to have the mistaken idea that the arbitrariness of the zero means you can flip the sign of the potential. That is a mistake.

You can add a constant to the potential, you cannot multiply it by a constant. That includes multiplying it by -1
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, Delta2, etotheipi and 1 other person
Admiralibr123 said:
That must definitely not be the case, so where am I wrong in my reasoning?
For GPE you have two conventions. If the object remains close to the surface, then you can write: $$V = mgh$$ where ##h## is the height above the surface.

And, in the general case we write $$V = -\frac{GMm}{r}$$.
The critical point, however, is that in both cases ##V## increases as ##r## or ##h## increases.

As a useful exercise, you could show that for ##r = R + h##, where ##h << R## we have:
$$V = -\frac{GMm}{r} = -\frac{GMm}{R + h} \approx V_0 + mgh$$ where ##V_0## is constant. This shows that the two conventions are approximately equivalent up to a constant term (in the case where the object remains close to the surface).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, Dale and etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K