Zero Potential Energy: Does an Absolute Zero Exist?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of gravitational potential energy and the idea of an absolute zero potential point within a system, specifically relating to the Earth. It is noted that while the ground is often chosen as the zero potential point for convenience, this choice is not arbitrary and can vary based on the problem at hand. When considering an object's center of mass at the Earth's center, the gravitational force diminishes to zero, suggesting a minimum potential energy at that point. However, this minimum does not equate to zero potential energy, as potential energy can remain finite and negative. The conversation emphasizes the flexibility in defining the zero point of potential energy based on context.
Inpyo
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I was thinking about the concept of the ground being the arbitrary zero potential point for gravitational potential energy and considered that since gravity is the attractive force between two objects that there would be no potential energy if an object's center of mass were somehow situated exactly at the Earth's center of mass. So would it be correct to say that a point of absolute zero potential exist within a system of say the Earth and something else?

-Ted
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Inpyo said:
I was thinking about the concept of the ground being the arbitrary zero potential point for gravitational potential energy
I wouldn't say it's arbitrary, it's chosen because it's often useful. If there is a more useful spot (for a specific problem) then I would take that to be the 'zero potential point.'

Inpyo said:
and considered that since gravity is the attractive force between two objects that there would be no potential energy if an object's center of mass were somehow situated exactly at the Earth's center of mass. So would it be correct to say that a point of absolute zero potential exist within a system of say the Earth and something else?
I am unsure if you're treating all of the Earth's mass as being located at the center, but just in case, I will remind you of the obvious: not all of Earth's mass is located at the center. As you move below the surface and approach the center, there is less mass pulling you down and the force of gravity gets weaker. Once you get to the center, if you could, then there would be no gravitational force on you and, as you said, no potential energy.

Can you think of anywhere else where there's zero gravitational potential energy?
 
That won't work with the forces between two idealized point particles, because the gravitational force becomes arbitrarily large as ##r## in ##Gm_1m_2/r^2## approaches zero. This means that dropping a particle from any height to zero will release an unbounded amount of energy and therefore the potential at ##r=0## is negative infinity. (This is the reason for the common convention of choosing the zero point of potential to be an infinite distance away).

With a real Earth instead of an idealized point particle, the potential energy at ##r=0## remains finite and lower than anywhere else, so we can say that the potential energy is at a minimum there. However, just because it's a minimum doesn't mean that it has to be zero.
 
Nugatory said:
With a real Earth instead of an idealized point particle, the potential energy at ##r=0## remains finite and lower than anywhere else, so we can say that the potential energy is at a minimum there. However, just because it's a minimum doesn't mean that it has to be zero.
What does it mean for the potential energy to be minimum but nonzero? What is the meaning of "potential" energy if there's no means of realizing it?
 
Nathanael said:
What does it mean for the potential energy to be minimum but nonzero? What is the meaning of "potential" energy if there's no means of realizing it?

I didn't say it's "non-zero", I said that it doesn't have to be zero - and that's exactly what you said a few posts back, that we can put the zero point wherever we please.
 
Nugatory said:
I didn't say it's "non-zero", I said that it doesn't have to be zero - and that's exactly what you said a few posts back, that we can put the zero point wherever we please.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top