Understanding G.P.E and Gravitational Binding Energy - A Conceptual Question

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter san203
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conceptual
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of Gravitational Potential Energy (G.P.E) and Gravitational Binding Energy (G.B.E), exploring their definitions, relationships, and implications in the context of gravitational fields. Participants engage in conceptual reasoning about how these energies relate to the motion of objects within gravitational fields, particularly in relation to Earth.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that G.P.E can be thought of as the energy by which an object is bound to Earth, questioning the necessity of supplying kinetic energy to separate the object from Earth.
  • Another participant defines Gravitational Binding Energy as the energy required to remove an object from Earth to "infinity," noting that this energy changes with the mass of the object and the celestial body it is being removed from.
  • A different participant contemplates whether a body must reach a position where G.P.E is zero to escape Earth's gravitational field, while questioning if G.B.E is constant given that G.P.E increases with height.
  • One participant presents an alternative interpretation of G.B.E, describing it as the total gravitational potential energy of a collection of objects, specifically in the context of removing all matter from a planet.
  • Another participant emphasizes that sufficient energy must be supplied to ensure that an object does not return to Earth, explaining the relationship between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy during the escape process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of Gravitational Binding Energy, with some viewing it as related to individual objects and others as a collective measure for multiple objects. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the definitions and implications of G.P.E and G.B.E.

Contextual Notes

There are varying assumptions about the definitions of G.P.E and G.B.E, and how they apply in different contexts, such as individual versus collective gravitational systems. The discussion also reflects uncertainty about the conditions under which these energies are considered constant or variable.

san203
Gold Member
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
I have always thought of G.P.E as how much a constrained body wants to fall in the direction of Gravitational Force Feild.But a while back i came across the concept of Gravitational Binding Energy.

The book said that it was the Modulus of G.P.E and it was the energy by which an object is bound to earth. So now do i have to think of G.P.E as the energy by which a object is bound to earth?
And why should i supply this much energy to the body as Kinetic energy to separate the body from Earth when the only reason its still bound is the Gravitational Force?
I am sorry if the question is confusing as i spent few hours thinking of this and got confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gravitational Binding energy is how much energy you would have to supply to remove an object from the Earth to "infinity". This only changes if you change the mass of the object you want to remove or you change the object you are removing it from. (IE the GBE changes for a 1kg block if you look at how much it takes to remove it from Mars instead of the Earth.)

Gravitational Potential Energy is how much potential energy an object has based on its location in a gravitational field. IE a rock held up at 10 feet in the air has more GPE than a rock held at 5 feet in the air.

Does that make sense?
 
Thanks. After some thinking i figured out about P.E.
If a body has to escape the Gravitational Field of Earth then it must be taken to a position where G.P.E is zero,right? if i supply a body with enough force( = Work done = Change in Energy??) it would probably move away from Earth , But that is thinking the P.E. is constant. But doesn't G.P.E increase as we go up? SO can one say that G.B.E is constant?
 
interesting... I have come across the phrase "gravitational binding energy" to mean something different. When I have seen it, it means the total gravitational potential energy of a collection of objects. In other words, the energy required to move all those objects infinitely far away from every other one.

I have seen this in questions about the gravitational binding energy of a planet. So in that case, it means the energy required to completely take apart all the matter which makes up the planet, and remove it all infinitely far away. (In that case, it is continuous matter, not a discrete set of objects, but the maths is pretty similar).

Maybe your book was using "gravitational binding energy" in the sense I am talking about here. Or maybe not. It is difficult to tell, without knowing what the sentence was specifically..
 
san203 said:
Thanks. After some thinking i figured out about P.E.
If a body has to escape the Gravitational Field of Earth then it must be taken to a position where G.P.E is zero,right? if i supply a body with enough force( = Work done = Change in Energy??) it would probably move away from Earth , But that is thinking the P.E. is constant. But doesn't G.P.E increase as we go up? SO can one say that G.B.E is constant?

No, it must be given enough energy so that the gravitational field of the Earth will never pull it back down. The potential energy will constantly increase, and the object will constantly decelerate, but since the strength of gravity falls off with distance, if we launch it with a high enough velocity the object will never fully stop.

If you assume an object is "infinitely far away" from the Earth and you allow that object to come straight towards the Earth under the force of gravity, it will impact the Earth with X amount of energy. This energy, when the object was AT infinity, was gravitational potential energy. Right before it impacted the Earth it was all kinetic energy instead. Ignoring losses from air resistance and other factors, this same amount of energy must be given to an object in the form of kinetic energy to launch it back out "to infinity". Does that make sense?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
8K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K