Understanding Shared Potential Energy in a Gravitational System

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of gravitational potential energy in a system of two point masses, ##m_1## and ##m_2##. Participants explore the implications of analyzing the motion of one mass while considering the other mass as stationary, particularly in contexts where the masses are not significantly different.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines gravitational potential energy as $$U_{grav} = -G \frac{m_1m_2}{r}$$ and questions why this energy isn't shared in a ratio between the two masses.
  • Another participant suggests that the analysis assumes one mass is much larger than the other, making it effectively stationary, which is a common approach in gravitational problems involving celestial bodies.
  • A participant raises the question of how the analysis would change if the masses of the two bodies were similar, indicating that the problem would become more complex.
  • It is proposed that using a center of mass coordinate system could yield sensible results when both bodies are in motion.
  • There is a confirmation that the approximation involves treating one mass as stationary during analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of potential energy and the implications of mass ratios, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved regarding the sharing of potential energy between the two masses.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the assumptions regarding the treatment of potential energy in systems with similar masses and the implications of using a center of mass frame.

PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20
Given two point masses, ##m_1## and ##m_2##, we define the gravitational potential energy of this system as:

$$U_{grav} = -G \frac{m_1m_2}{r}$$

Where ##r## is the separation between ##m_1## and ##m_2##.

When we analyze the motion of a single component, say ##m_1## in this system, we usually say things like:

The potential energy of ##m_1## is:

$$U_{grav} = -G \frac{m_1m_2}{r}$$

This is where my intuition fails. As dumb as this may sound, why isn't potential energy shared in some ratio between ##m_1## and ##m_2##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MohammedRady97 said:
This is where my intuition fails. As dumb as this may sound, why isn't potential energy shared in some ratio between ##m_1## and ##m_2##?

When we're analyzing the problem in terms of the motion of only one of the two bodies, we are making an assumption that mass of the other body is so great that it is effectively not moving at all. That works just fine for objects moving around in Earth's gravitational field (where you probably first saw this treatment of potential energy), planets orbiting the sun, and the like.
 
Nugatory said:
When we're analyzing the problem in terms of the motion of only one of the two bodies, we are making an assumption that mass of the other body is so great that it is effectively not moving at all. That works just fine for objects moving around in Earth's gravitational field (where you probably first saw this treatment of potential energy), planets orbiting the sun, and the like.

What if the masses of the two bodies were similar? How would our analysis differ in that case?
 
MohammedRady97 said:
What if the masses of the two bodies were similar? How would our analysis differ in that case?
The problem becomes appreciably harder, but you can choose coordinates in which the center of mass of the two bodies is at rest and both objects are in motion and you'll get sensible results.
 
Nugatory said:
When we're analyzing the problem in terms of the motion of only one of the two bodies, we are making an assumption that mass of the other body is so great that it is effectively not moving at all. That works just fine for objects moving around in Earth's gravitational field (where you probably first saw this treatment of potential energy), planets orbiting the sun, and the like.

So the approximation is that we consider one mass to be stationary, correct?
 
MohammedRady97 said:
So the approximation is that we consider one mass to be stationary, correct?
Yes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K