Where does the energy of gravity come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bassplayer142
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Gravity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the origin of energy in gravitational interactions, particularly during a gravitational slingshot maneuver. Participants debate whether gravity can generate energy and how it affects celestial bodies like the Moon and Earth. It is noted that while gravity is a static force that does not do work in a traditional sense, it can influence the motion of objects, leading to energy transfer. The Moon's orbit is described as being maintained without energy loss, as its acceleration is perpendicular to its motion, thus not changing its kinetic energy. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexity of gravitational energy dynamics and the ongoing questions about energy conservation in orbital mechanics.
  • #51
Rasalhague said:
Think of the simple case where the difference in mass between the two bodies is so great that the effect of the smaller mass, m, on the greater, M, can be ignored. Let's suppose mass m is in a circular orbit around M.

By definition of potential energy (and taking our "zero of potential energy" as infinity),

U = - \int_{r}^{\infty} \textbf{F} \cdot \textup{d}\textbf{r} = \frac{-GMm}{r},

where U is potential energy due to gravity, F gravitational force, M the greater mass, m the smaller mass, dr an infinitesimal change in the position of m (the position considered as a position vector, r, extending from the centre of mass of the system, here effectively the centre of mass of M, to the centre of mass of m), r the magnitude (length) of this position vector r, G the gravitational constant (which relates the units). In other words, the potential energy of the satellite m is the work that would be done by the force of gravity if it was to move m from infinitely far away to its current position.

By definition of kinetic energy,

T = \frac{1}{2}mv^2,

where T is the kinetic energy of the orbiting body with mass m, and v its speed, defined as the magnitude of its velocity with respect to the more massive body.

By definition of circular motion,

\frac{\mathrm{d} r}{\mathrm{d} t} = 0

at all points in the orbit. This just means that the distance of the satellite from the more massive body doesn't vary over time.

Less obviously,

\frac{\mathrm{d} v}{\mathrm{d} t} = 0.

That is, the speed of the satellite is constant over time. This follows from Kepler's 2nd law in the special case of a circular orbit; the radius of the orbit doesn't change, so the only way that an equal area can be swept out over an equal time is if the speed is constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#Second_law

Therefore

\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} t} \left(T + U) = 0.

Kinetic energy is constant, and potential energy is constant, so their sum is constant.
in reply to Rasalhague's post with the equations regarding potential and kinetic energy, I was wondering if this constant of kinetic and potential energy example can be applied to a comet going in a straight line that is bent and pulled in by the Sun's gravity (therefore changing its velocity, which requires an output of energy)?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #52
The change in velocity is exactly offset by the change in potential energy.

In circular motion neither T nor U changes. This is a special case. In general orbits (ellipse, or hyperbola, or parabolas) T and U are dynamics. But T+U always remains constant. If you lose T you gain U and vice versa.
 
  • #53
flufffrost said:
I have been thinking about two different possibilities. For one thing, isn't it possible our understanding of energy is incomplete? I mean we say all this stuff about how there must be conservation of energy and all these equations that show this and that, but aren't those all just "proven" by real-life examples we've all seen? I mean to say that we might not be able to answer this question because there is not a good enough understanding of energy.
Also, Einstein's idea that matter warps space-time meant to show that yes, when space is flat and good and all, an object will continue to move in a straight line. However, when space is curved (as it supposedly is around planets), the path of least resistance so to speak is a curved one. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted this idea.
Still, this does not address the question as to where this energy comes from. I liked the example given above regarding two metal balls attached by a wire--if spun and left in space, they will continue to spin for eternity because of all the velocity dot stuff. However, it seems to me that the question we are addressing is where did the energy for that original spin come from? This initial spin force is analogous to the Sun changing the direction of a comet. Where does it get the energy to do that? Do we know enough about energy to answer it? Or does it not need energy?


ps sorry for the long post!

Do a little reading on the Stress-Energy Tensor (Momentum-Energy Tensor). That describes how spacetime is distored by (no shock here) energy. You'll note that beyond a constent for energy, physics doesn't offer an explanation as to what energy is. The best definition for energy is that it's what distorts and is guides by spacetime. Energy is not a 'thing', but a concept to describe how Work is done. What is energy is right up there with 'what is time, really?'... that is for metaphysics and philosophers... or physicists of the distant future.
 
  • #54
First of all let's get some concepts clear here:

1) Energy: is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of
Work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law.

2) Work: is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance. Like energy, it is a scalar quantity.

FORMULA for WORK: W = F (force) x d (distance of displacement)3) Force: In physics, the concept of force is used to describe an influence which causes a free body to undergo an acceleration. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. An applied force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.

Formula for FORCE: F = M (mass) x A (acceleration)
 
  • #55
Sportsguy, qould it be fair to say that "work" is the measurement of a condensed singular action? I say condensed because a singular action would be the 2 elementary particles reacting to one another, and of course that happens on too large a scale to be measured.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
(cont.) As Stated very well by posters Rasalhague and Matterwave above, in a closed field, the total potential + kinetic energy of that field must always add up to the same amount. If you increase the potential energy, the kinetic should decrease...and vice-versa.

Similar to magnets that attract each other, if you move them apart they gain potential energy as they go further and further apart while losing kinetic energy at the same time. Now when you move those same magnets closer to each other; they lose that potential energy and gain the equivalent kinetic energy.

Overall the systems adds up 0 in either case.
 
  • #57
NYSportsguy said:
(cont.) As Stated very well by posters Rasalhague and Matterwave above, in a closed field, the total potential + kinetic energy of that field must always add up to the same amount. If you increase the potential energy, the kinetic should decrease...and vice-versa.

Similar to magnets that attract each other, if you move them apart they gain potential energy as they go further and further apart while losing kinetic energy at the same time. Now when you move those same magnets closer to each other; they lose that potential energy and gain the equivalent kinetic energy.

Overall the systems adds up 0 in either case.

And...?
 
  • #58
bassplayer142 said:
Say you were to slingshot around the moon and gain momentum. In so doing you would have gained Energy from gravity. Basically because energy is conserved there has to be some way that the force of gravity "radiating" out from the moon would come in contact with a space shuttle and speed it up. How does this work?


Once again, you would have gained kinetic energy form that field but decreased an equal amount potential energy in the process. Overall the amount of energy in the gravitational field remains constant.

Momentum = mass x velocity
 
  • #59
Matterwave said:
The change in velocity is exactly offset by the change in potential energy.

In circular motion neither T nor U changes. This is a special case. In general orbits (ellipse, or hyperbola, or parabolas) T and U are dynamics. But T+U always remains constant. If you lose T you gain U and vice versa.

So, you guys are saying that the Earth's pulling of the moon is a closed system given by the fact that the sum of kinetic and potential energy remains constant (forgive me once more if I have misinterpreted, I really don't know much about physics but I like to read physics discussions). Still, work is being done. When an asteroid is pulled in by Earth's gravity, gravity has accelerated it a given distance of displacement from what would have been its natural course. So doesn't energy either have to come in from somewhere or somehow be re-transferred to the Earth?
 
  • #60
flufffrost said:
So, you guys are saying that the Earth's pulling of the moon is a closed system given by the fact that the sum of kinetic and potential energy remains constant (forgive me once more if I have misinterpreted, I really don't know much about physics but I like to read physics discussions). Still, work is being done.

No. No work is being done because the CoM of the (Earth/Moon) system has remained stationary.

flufffrost said:
When an asteroid is pulled in by Earth's gravity, gravity has accelerated it a given distance of displacement from what would have been its natural course. So doesn't energy eitherc have to come in from somewhere or somehow be re-transferred to the Earth?
Depends on whether you include the asteroid in the system or not. If you do not, then yes work is done (the CoM of Earth/Moon has moved due the external influence of the asteroid); if you do, tehn no work is done (because the CoM of Earth/Moon/asteroid has not moved).
 
  • #61
DaveC426913 said:
No. No work is being done because the CoM of the (Earth/Moon) system has remained stationary.


Depends on whether you include the asteroid in the system or not. If you do not, then yes work is done (the CoM of Earth/Moon has moved due the external influence of the asteroid); if you do, tehn no work is done (because the CoM of Earth/Moon/asteroid has not moved).

Sorry if I have misinterpreted once more, but I understand you guys to be saying that energy is not used in a system if the sum of potential and kinetic energy is constant. Is this right?
 
  • #62
Leonardo de N said:
It is my belief that gravity is what is experienced when the boson graviton flow is compressed as it flows in a concentric manor toward the center of a clumped mass. That this graviton flux is confined and channeled (maximized) in a hyperbolic-parabolic environment as it zooms in on the magnetic equator of the clumped rotating mass. Unlike a photon we don't see the graviton flow because it is flowing sidewise within the plane of the channeled flow. I've chosen to call this a "null zone".

So how is the energy from the graviton transferd? first into a meu messon (the only particle which is it's own anti-particle and which only occurs naturally in a null zone) and than into 2 electrons and 2 positrons plus both positive and negative photons. The transfer from boson energy to fermion mass involves a chiral twist which is the rotational source (angular momentum) that keeps the mass (say the earth) spinning.

Remembering that all gravitational effects are additive, the rotation will increase or decrease depending upon the strength of the graviton flux. The moon without an electro-magnitic field will neither add to or subtract from the Earth's graviton field.

I don't suppose that you feel like any kind of saaaaay... proof or citation or anything to support your 'belief'? I can hear the high energy folks tearing out clumps of hair as we speak, and I suspect the GR folks are sharpening their knives. I'm just here to lap up the blood. :smile:
 
  • #63
flufffrost said:
Sorry if I have misinterpreted once more, but I understand you guys to be saying that energy is not used in a system if the sum of potential and kinetic energy is constant. Is this right?

Energy is never "used". It's not like energy just disappears, it just gets transformed to a different form. This is the law of conservation of Energy.

It's like my money. If I give my money to you to buy a hamburger, my money doesn't just disappear, it gets transferred to you! So if you say "hey did you use up that money?", I might say "yes, for you see, I have no money left"; however, if you consider both you and me as 1 system, then the money just made a transfer.
 
  • #64
Matterwave said:
Energy is never "used". It's not like energy just disappears, it just gets transformed to a different form. This is the law of conservation of Energy.

It's like my money. If I give my money to you to buy a hamburger, my money doesn't just disappear, it gets transferred to you! So if you say "hey did you use up that money?", I might say "yes, for you see, I have no money left"; however, if you consider both you and me as 1 system, then the money just made a transfer.

It's fungible baby, like goooold. :wink:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top