Why Use mg vs mgh in Introductory Physics?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter guitarman
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriate contexts for using the formulas mg and mgh in introductory physics, particularly in relation to force, energy, and work. Participants explore the distinctions between these concepts and their applications in various principles of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on when to use mg versus mgh, noting a lack of guidance from their teacher and textbook.
  • Another participant points out that mg represents force while mgh represents energy, based on their respective units.
  • A question is raised about whether mgh is used in energy principles and mg in momentum principles.
  • It is stated that mgh is indeed used when dealing with energy, but a follow-up question asks about the units of momentum and their relation to mg.
  • A participant explains Newton's second law and its relation to gravitational force and work done, linking it to potential energy.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of work, with one participant asserting that work can be defined as the change in kinetic energy, while another elaborates on how work relates to lifting an object against gravity.
  • Some participants discuss the mathematical representation of work as an integral, with one asking about the notation for the integral symbol.
  • Another participant emphasizes the relationship between net work and changes in kinetic energy, reiterating the conservation of energy concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and applications of work, energy, and force, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus on the use of mg versus mgh.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the assumption that gravitational force is constant, while others note that this may not hold true over larger distances, indicating a potential limitation in the discussion.

guitarman
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Can somebody please help me understand in which situations (for a intro physics 1 class) I would be required to use mg versus mgh? Neither my teacher nor my textbook have really gone into when you use which, rather they seem to arbitrarily use one, and I would like to understand why. Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look at the units. mg is in units of force (kg m/s²), while mgh is in units of energy (kg m²/s²).
 
So do I use mgh when dealing with the energy principle and mg when using the momentum principle?
 
You do use mgh when dealing with energy.

What are the units of momentum? Do they match the units of mg?
 
Newton's second law states: F = m*a, in which a is the acceleration. In the case of gravitation, a = g = 9,1 m/s².

Work = W = F*s.
In case of gravitation, F = m*g, and s could be represented by h (height). The work done equals the change of potential energy. So potential energy U = W = mgh.
 
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy
and work is the integral of F*s
 
cragar said:
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy
and work is the integral of F*s
1) Work can be the change in kinetic energy, but it doesn't have to be so. If a resultant force F would act on a car for a certain distance s, the work done would equal the change of kinetic energy: dT = W = Fs. But if you consider a weight that you want to lift up, you would need a force equal to the gravitational force (in opposite direction) to lift it to a certain height (h). In this case, the work done isn't converted into velocity (kinectic energy) but into height, thus potential energy.

Another, maybe an easier way of looking at the problem is as follows. Consider an object of mass m at a certain height h. The gravitational force Fg=mg acts on the object. The object accelerates until it hits the Earth (the mass will have velocity and thus kinetic energy). Because of conservation of energy, another ''kind'' of energy has lessened in order for the total change of energy to remain zero. This energy is the potential energy, and equals the work done by Fg.

2) W=\int{F\cdot ds}

If F is constant, which is the case for gravitation (although not 100% accurate, since the force is less on a greater distance)

W=\int{F\cdot ds = F \int{ds} = F\cdot s
 
Last edited:
how do u input the integral symbol in ur statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Work-done-by-a-force is the line-integral-of-F along a path.

Using Newton's Second Law, the net-work (work done by the net-force) is the change-in-the-kinetic-energy.

When there are conservative-forces doing work, one can define a potential energy function and then define that work as minus-the-change-in-potential-energy.
 
  • #11
yes i understood your explanation , thanks
 
  • #12
cragar said:
i thought work was the change in kinetic energy

The net work done by all forces acting on an object equals the change in the object's KE.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K