Understanding Potential Energy and Functions: Verification and Clarification

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmmcnamara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between potential energy and potential functions, specifically the equation dvec{p}/dt = ∇φ. Participants clarify that the negative sign is typically included in this equation because potential energy decreases in the direction of the force. There is a debate about the orientation of force and potential energy, particularly in scenarios where potential energy increases with height. The gradient of a scalar field indicates the direction of increase, reinforcing the need for the negative sign in the context of forces derived from potential energy. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding these relationships in physics.
cmmcnamara
Messages
121
Reaction score
1
Hi all,

So I do feel a bit silly with this question, but I've just begun to realize the relation ship between potential energy and potential functions...

So just quickly, would the following relationship be considered true:

\frac{d\vec{p}}{dt}=\nabla\phi

and by breaking apart the vectors, generally:

\frac{d\vec{p_s}}{dt}-\frac{d\phi}{ds}=0

Just wanted a quick verification and/or push in the right direction.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually there's a negative sign in the first equation, because we define potential energy as decreasing along the direction of force. Otherwise, your logic is correct.
 
I'm not sure I understand the negative sign, wouldn't that be dependent on the orientation of the force (eg, if my net force is pointed upwards from earth, potential energy increases with height).
 
The gradient gives the direction of increase of a scalar field.

When the scalar field is potential energy, the force is always defined as the direction that potential energy decreases. Hence, a minus sign is required.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top