Source of potential energy of body made in space falling

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the source of gravitational potential energy for an object created in space that falls towards a celestial body. Participants explore the nature of energy transfer in gravitational interactions, particularly focusing on scenarios involving objects created in a vacuum and their subsequent movement towards each other and celestial bodies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions where an object created in space derives its energy when it moves gravitationally towards a celestial body, suggesting it might involve mass-energy.
  • Another participant asserts that the energy comes from the celestial body, indicating a reciprocal relationship where energy must be returned to separate the objects.
  • Concerns are raised about the finiteness of energy and whether an object can ever have zero energy in such scenarios, questioning the implications for gravitational attraction.
  • A participant clarifies that while the energy gained from falling is finite, the celestial body does not lose energy in the process; it simply gains mass.
  • One participant emphasizes that energy must be added to create an object at a higher potential, adhering to conservation laws.
  • Another participant discusses the initial conditions of two objects created far apart and questions the energy dynamics as they move towards each other, suggesting that potential energy may be negligible at large distances.
  • A later reply challenges the idea that no additional energy is required when creating an object at a higher potential, stating that potential energy is negative for close objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of energy transfer and the implications of gravitational potential energy, with no consensus reached on the underlying mechanisms or the conditions of energy creation and transfer.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference conservation laws and the concept of potential energy being defined relative to distance, but these ideas remain unresolved and are subject to interpretation based on the context of the discussion.

NotASmurf
Messages
150
Reaction score
2
Hey all, question about gravitational potential energy. If an object begins on ground then gains height when it falls then energy it consumes to fall down was the potential created by moving upwards, if an object was created in space, then moves gravitationally towards a celestial body where does it get the energy from? Does it use mass-energy? Any help appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It gets the energy from that celestial body. And vice versa. If you want to separate them again, you'll need to put back in that same energy !
 
BvU said:
It gets the energy from that celestial body.
White is finite right. So can anything ever have 0 energy due to it all being used in circumstances like this and then gravity wouldn't apply to the scenario in my question?
 
I'm afraid I can't follow. The energy you can pick up from falling towards a celestial body is finite, yes. After all, you bump into the thing at a certain painful moment. But it's not so that the celestial body gets tired from attracting falling objects. It just gets heavier.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NotASmurf
Sorry I'm bad at phrasing today, what I meant was that object has E=mgh, and it gains that from the energy it uses to increase h, assuming it started on the ground with zero relative potential, then when it falls it uses that energy. But my point was that if two objects where created in a vacuum next to one another with no kinetic energy or potential since they haven't 'climbed' anywhere they still move towards each other, my question was what energy was converted to the kinetic energy
 
Good question ! In fact so fundamental that I'll have to pass it to the theoreticians ! @Orodruin , @mfb ? Something with the energy of the gravitational field or so. But perhaps there is a simpler answer and I'm overlooking it. Glad I responded, now I also get an alert if some genuine wizard has a good answer !

But I can still comment on the first part: for convenience and by convention we define the potential energy from gravity to be zero at infinite separation. It's just a convention, because you can't feel potential energy. Forces, etcetera, anything noticeable depends on energy differences .
 
First of all, you really cannot create something out of nothing. There are conservation laws that prohibit this.

If you create something by somehow adding the appropriate amount of energy to the system, it will take more energy to create the object at a higher potential than it would to create it at a lower potential.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NotASmurf
Alright, but in the beginning (after all the first epochs and everything solidified) and body A was far away from body B (the scenario you mentioned where the energy was effectively zero) and it moved towards body B by virtue of kinetic energy which was not converted from potential, then it stopped above a planet, then it becomes attracted to it, initially when it was created it wouldn't take more energy to produce by virtue of potential as the distance would be large enough for it to be negligible, but then it would still fall towards the planet.
 
NotASmurf said:
initially when it was created it wouldn't take more energy to produce by virtue of potential as the distance would be large enough for it to be negligible

Yes it would take more energy. The potential for two close objects is negative.
 
  • #10
NotASmurf said:
body A was far away from body B
In last message I meant if they were far away
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K