Why Is There a Negative Sign in the Work-Energy Equation?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the work-energy equation, specifically the presence of a negative sign in the equation W = -ΔU. Participants are exploring the relationship between conservative vector fields, potential energy, and the work done by or on a system.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the definitions of conservative vector fields and potential functions, questioning the meaning of the negative sign in the work-energy equation, and discussing different methods to calculate work done by gravity on an object.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the interpretation of the negative sign, suggesting it reflects the perspective of work being done by the system versus work done on the system. Others have provided examples to illustrate their points, indicating a productive exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted difference in terminology and context between calculus and physics texts, which may contribute to confusion regarding the definitions and implications of work and potential energy.

4570562
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



My calculus book gives the following definition of a conservative vector field:

A vector field F is called conservative if there exists a differentiable function f such that F=[itex]\nabla[/itex]f. The function f is called the potential function for F.


It then gives the fundamental theorem of line integrals:

The line integral of a conservative vector field is equal to the change in the potential function f.

And follows this up by saying that the work done on a particle moving in a force field F is given by the change in the potential function f.


All this pretty much made sense until my physics book came along and said that W=-ΔU. Why is that negative sign there?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi 4570562,

It looks to me like your calculus and physics textbooks are talking about slightly different things. Your calculus book is giving you a discussion of formal vector fields, whereas from the notation, I take it that your physics text is just considering some simple scalar work and energy ideas.

The matter of the negative sign in an equation like your W = -ΔU is a choice that represents who is doing work on who. try to find in your physics book the exactly what it means by 'W'; is that the work that the system with potential energy U is doing, or is it the work being performed on that system? Judging by the placement of the negative sign you were wondering about, it looks like that equation is saying "the work W done BY the system is equal to the negative of the change in its potential energy'; qualitatively this makes some sense, since the system has to expend some energy to do some work on something external to it.

Hope this helps,
Bill Mills
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's take an example. Suppose you drop from rest a ball of mass m and let it fall for 3 seconds. You want to find the amount of work that gravity does on the object. There are three ways you could proceed.

1) Use W=[itex]\int[/itex][itex]\vec{F}[/itex][itex]\cdot[/itex]d[itex]\vec{r}[/itex] the line integral method. (Note that this method can be made simpler by first finding the potential function f such that gradF = f and then calculating the change in f. In other words, use W=Δf.)
2) Use W=ΔK the work-energy theorem.
3) Use W=-ΔU where U=mgy

I'll spare you the details, but either way the work comes out to 4.5mg2. Note that in the first method I used f=-mgy. So in other words U=-f. Why is U defined this way? It seems to me that things would be a whole lot less confusing if U was just defined to be equal to f.
 
Last edited:
Okay I think I figured it out. Suppose toward a contradiction that U=f=-mgy. Going back to the ball example that would mean

[itex]U_{a}[/itex]=-mgh
[itex]K_{a}[/itex]=0

[itex]U_{b}[/itex]=-mg(-4.5+h)=4.5mg2-mgh
[itex]K_{b}[/itex]=4.5mg2

But that would violate conservation of energy since [itex]U_{a}[/itex]+[itex]K_{a}[/itex]≠[itex]U_{b}[/itex]+[itex]K_{b}[/itex].



However, letting U=-f=mgy implies that

[itex]U_{a}[/itex]=mgh
[itex]K_{a}[/itex]=0

[itex]U_{b}[/itex]=mg(-4.5+h)=-4.5mg2+mgh
[itex]K_{b}[/itex]=4.5mg2

which makes [itex]U_{a}[/itex]+[itex]K_{a}[/itex]=[itex]U_{b}[/itex]+[itex]K_{b}[/itex].
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
707
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K