Potential energy: where is the error in my logic?

In summary: Hence the negative sign.In summary, gravitational potential energy is defined as the work needed to move a particle from a distance r to infinitely away from the source of the gravitational force. This is found by taking the integral of the force ∫F.dr, which results in a negative value due to the direction of the force. This means that when moving in the direction of the force, the potential energy decreases, but if moving against it, the potential energy increases. The flaw in the logic was assuming that the potential energy was just the integral of the force, when in fact it is the difference in potential energy between two points.
  • #1
Nikitin
735
27
1) For gravitational potential energy: ##F(r)=-\frac{\gamma M m}{r^2}##.

2) For potential energy of a conservative force-field: ##-\nabla E_p = F##. So the gradient of the potential energy is always equal to the force in that direction, just with the opposite sign. So when you move in the direction of the force, the potential energy decreases, but if you move against it the potential energy will increase.

3) Thus to find the gravitational potential energy as a function of r, I just need to find how much work I need to do to carry a particle from a distance r to infinitely away from the source of the gravitational force. ##dE_p = -\vec{F(r)} \cdot \vec{dr} \Rightarrow E_p(r) = -\int_r^{\infty} -\frac{\gamma M m}{r^2} dr = \frac{\gamma M m}{r}##

Uhh and so I get an expression with the opposite sign of what I'm supposed to get. Help? Can somebody point out the flaw of my logic?

EDIT: Is my flaw that gravitational potential energy is NOT defined as how much work is needed to make something escape the gravitational field? If so, can somebody correct my line of thinking?

EDIT2: Oops I forgot that ##-\int_r^{\infty} -\frac{\gamma M m}{r^2} dr = \frac{\gamma M m}{r} = E_p(\infty)-E_p(r)##, and not just ##E_p(r)##. Okay, so since the pot. energy is equal to zero at ##E_p(\infty)##, I'm all set?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you take the integral ∫F.dr you get -GMm [itex]\int_R^{\infty} \frac{1}{r^2}[/itex] dr

1/r vanishes in the limit where r→∞ so we just have -[itex]\frac{GMm}{R} [/itex] which is the work done by gravity moving from R to ∞.

If we swap the limits around to get the work done by gravity moving from ∞ to R then we get a positive value. Gravity does work moving towards the source of the field and we have to do work against gravity in the other direction.
 

FAQ: Potential energy: where is the error in my logic?

1. Where does potential energy come from?

Potential energy is a measure of the energy an object has due to its position or configuration. It is not something that is "produced" or "created", but rather a property of the object itself.

2. How is potential energy different from kinetic energy?

Potential energy is the energy an object has due to its position or configuration, while kinetic energy is the energy an object has due to its motion. Both types of energy are related and can be converted into each other.

3. Can potential energy be negative?

Yes, potential energy can be negative. This occurs when an object's position or configuration is below its reference point. For example, a ball sitting on the ground has a negative potential energy compared to a ball sitting on a higher shelf.

4. Does potential energy depend on mass?

Yes, potential energy is directly proportional to an object's mass. The more massive an object is, the more potential energy it has. This can be seen in the equation for gravitational potential energy: PE = mgh, where m is the mass of the object.

5. What is the error in thinking that potential energy can be created or destroyed?

The error in this logic is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. Potential energy is a form of energy that is already present in an object due to its position or configuration, and it cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be converted into other forms, such as kinetic energy or thermal energy.

Back
Top