I'm studying calculus, but since the example involved a physical concept. I will ask here:

This is how it goes:

This means that in a conservative force field, the amount of work required to move an object from point a to point b depends only on those points, not on the path taken between them.

But what does it mean? How does it not depend on the path?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is there something the Wikipedia article doesn't cover about this? $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jun 5 '15 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ Well, mathematically it's proven in my book, too, but somehow it didn't make an intuitive sense. But maybe math is all I need to rely on here. So then, in a conservative vector field, the object will always perform the maximum amount of work possible between 2 arbitrary points? Did I get that right? $\endgroup$ – Max Jun 5 '15 at 19:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ you do work, say to lift a weight, then, in a conservative field, say gravity with no friction, you get back, exactly, the work done in you having lifted the weight in the first place. not a real life common effect. the path in gravity only depends on vertical motion, horizontal motion does not come into it $\endgroup$ – user81619 Jun 5 '15 at 20:01

If $\vec{F}$ is a conservative force field, then it satisfies the property $$ \tag{1} \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{F} = 0, $$ and it can be written as $$ \tag{2} \vec{F} = \vec{\nabla}V, $$ for a scalar function $V$ (which corresponds to potential function in physics).

Note that, when you put $(2)$ into $(1)$ it becomes a "curl of a gradient" and is automatically vanishes. You can derive this result by using simple mathematical knowledge.

In physics, work done on a particle by applying a force $\vec{F}$ along a path is defined as $$ \tag{3} W = \int_C \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{s}, $$ where $C$ is any path connecting two points in the space, call $A$ (initial point) and $B$ (end point). These are the points we start/finish applying the force. Regarding this, we can rewrite $(3)$ as $$ W = \int_A^B \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{s}. $$

Now, if $\vec{F}$ is conservative then we can also use property $(2)$, which gives \begin{align} W & = \int_A^B \vec{\nabla}V \cdot d\vec{s} \\ & = \int_A^B \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{s}}V \cdot d\vec{s} \\ & = V(B) - V(A). \end{align}

Thus, with the given property that force field is conservative we find work done on a particle by exerting this force field only depends on the end points but not on the path we choose.

NOTE: Conventionally, in physics we write $(2)$ with a minus sign in front, $$ \vec{F} = -\vec{\nabla}V. $$ However, in the above text, I used it in the formal mathematical description without regarding any physical concerns.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Actually, the proof is given in my book, too. I guess I just didn't feel how could it be, but then...I should probably rely on math here. I'll choose your answer as the best, maybe it will help someone in the future. $\endgroup$ – Max Jun 5 '15 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ I just saw the comments above. As @Acid Jazz mentioned, teachers also usually give the same gravity example in lectures. If gravity pulls an object down from a height $h$, then independent of the path chosen, it will always exert the force $\vec{F} = m\vec{g}$ and as a result work done on the particle will always be $W = mgh$, again independent of the path. $\endgroup$ – sahin Jun 5 '15 at 20:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.