What does negative potential energy mean?

AI Thread Summary
Negative potential energy indicates a chosen reference level for potential energy, which can be arbitrary. When an object is lifted, its potential energy increases, becoming less negative, but this does not mean energy is lost; rather, it reflects the work done against gravity. The negative sign simply shows that the reference point for zero potential energy is set higher in the gravitational field. Energy is a scalar quantity and does not have direction, making the concept of negative potential energy a matter of convention. Ultimately, the difference in potential energy between two points determines the work needed to move an object in a gravitational field.
Remain
In the case of lifting a box, I know potential energy is negative because negative work is done by gravity. What does the negative part of -PE denote? Does it denote the direction of the energy or does it mean that energy is being lost? But how is energy being lost if the box gains more gravitational potential energy the higher it's lifted? So what does negative potential energy mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Remain said:
But how is energy being lost if the box gains more gravitational potential energy the higher it's lifted?

Nothing gets lost. If the potential energy increases it is less negative than before.

Remain said:
So what does negative potential energy mean?

It means that the potential energy is negative. What else?
 
The only thing the minus sign in front of PE means is that you've chosen the reference level of 0 PE to be somewhere higher in the gravitational well.

The 0 PE level is arbitrary. You can choose any convention you like.
If you choose 0 to coincide with the surface of the Earth, then any object above it will have positive PE, and any object below the surface will have negative PE.
If you choose 0 to coincide with infinite distance from the source of the gravitational field, then all objects closer than infinity will have negative PE.

However, in both cases (and in any other case) the difference between PE at some two points in the gravitational field will be the same - it's independent of the convention you pick, and that's what makes it meaningful. That difference is the amount of work needed in order to lift an object, or the amount of energy released when it falls.

Remain said:
Does it denote the direction of the energy
Energy is not a vector. It is a scalar - it doesn't have direction.
 
  • Like
Likes Kaushik, Dale and (deleted member)
A good reason for choosing an arbitrary reference as 'Infinity' is that it's the same for anyone, anywhere in the Universe (at least, in a classical mechanical sense). The familiar model of the rubber sheet with masses sitting on it, to represent a solar system works well and we can all picture an observer at the outer rim (approximating to infinity), with everything 'below' that potential level. The forces are always attractive.
However, if you consider the potential energy situation existing between nearby atoms, the spacing between the atoms is governed by where the Potential Energy is at a minimum. Closer than this and the forces become repulsive and the Potential energy becomes Positive. See this wikipedia link. The mean spacing between atoms will end up at value where the Kinetic Energy of Vibration balances the mean Potential Energy (not the minimum of the curve).

This diagram appears in the link.
Morsepot_Cu.png
 
  • Like
Likes Remain
Thanks guys! But in the equation W = Wnc + -mgh, aren't you kind of like subtracting away energy or something?
 
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