0
$\begingroup$

From universal law of gravitation, gravitational force exerted on a body of mass m by another body of mass M is $$ \mathbf F = \frac{GMm}{x^2} $$ where x is the distance between the centres of both the objects.

So, work done by gravitational force in bringing the object of mass m from infinity to a distance r from the centre of body of mass M is $$ W = \int_\infty^r \vec{F(x)}.\vec{dx}$$ $$=\int_\infty^r \frac{GMm}{x^2}\hat x.\vec{dx}$$ (where $\hat x$ is the unit vector in the direction in which the body of mass M is attracting the body of mass m, i.e. the direction of $\vec{dx}$ which results the angle between both vectors $0$) $$ =\int_\infty^r \frac{GMm}{x^2} {dx}\ cos0$$

$$ = - GMm\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{\infty}\right) $$ $$= -\frac{GMm}{r}$$

Now, we know that $$W=-(∆U)$$ $$-\frac{GMm}{r} = -(U_r - U_\infty)$$ $$-\frac{GMm}{r} = (U_\infty - U_r)$$ Since, Zero of potential energy is at infinity by convention, so $U_\infty$ = 0 $$-\frac{GMm}{r} = -U_r$$ $$\frac{GMm}{r} = U_r$$

I get potential energy at a distance r as positive, then why is it that gravitational potential energy is $$-\frac{GMm}{r}$$

What is wrong in my derivation?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Please see this: physics.stackexchange.com/q/64674 $\endgroup$ Jan 23 '18 at 16:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For starters, in your first formula (v3), you equate a vector with a scalar. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jan 23 '18 at 16:47
  • $\begingroup$ I don't agree $U_\infty = 0 $. I think $U_r = 0 $ $\endgroup$
    – paparazzo
    Jan 23 '18 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ $U_\infty=0$ is the convention most commonly used. $\endgroup$ Jan 23 '18 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ Have a look at this derivation where it is shown that the limits of integration determine the sign of the work done. physics.stackexchange.com/a/302728/104696 $\endgroup$
    – Farcher
    Jan 23 '18 at 20:21
2
$\begingroup$

The definition of potential energy is the work done by external force in moving a mass from a distance r to infinity without changing its kinetic energy. Or you can say potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational force in bringing a mass from a distance r to infinity.

Potential energy can be seen as that energy which on application to a mass would free it from the influence from the other mass(here Earth). So we integrate the expression from r to $\infty$.

Now writing the expression for the work done,

$$dW=\vec F.d\vec x$$ where $\vec F$ is the external force which is in the direction of displacement($\theta=0, \cos \theta=1$).So now the expression becomes $$dW=\int^\infty_r F.dx$$ integrate the expression and you may get the desired result.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ $$W=-\int^r_\infty F.dx$$ $$W=-\int^r_\infty \frac{GMm}{x^2}dx$$ $$= -(( \frac{-GMm}{r}) -( \frac{-GMm}{\infty}))$$ $$\frac{GMm}{r} $$ $\endgroup$ Jan 24 '18 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ How can I get negative potential energy? $\endgroup$ Jan 24 '18 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ I got work done by external force as positive. Now since work done by external force is equal to potential energy at that point, so potential energy is equal to $$\frac{GMm}{r}$$. How will I get this expression negative? $\endgroup$ Jan 24 '18 at 3:23
1
$\begingroup$

Signs in these calculations are usually challenging. However, you pretty much know that your first definition of W is wrong. When gravitation grabs a mass from infinity and brings it close by, it obviously performs positive work. From M point of view, it added kinetic energy to m hence positive work. Your equation for W results in negative work.

The crux is in your definitions of directions along these lines: You are defining $\hat{x}$ as the direction from far to near. But the integral limits suggest $\hat{x}$ direction from near to far.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ If I am integrating from infinity to r, then how is it that $\hat{x}$ points from near to far? $\endgroup$ Jan 23 '18 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ And further, $\hat{x}$ is the unit vector for force of gravitation, so i think that it should always point from far to near. Am i right? $\endgroup$ Jan 23 '18 at 17:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Assume origin is at M. X axis direction towards m. dx direction is towards m. Integral limits are OK. But force is towards M and should be negative. $\endgroup$
    – npojo
    Jan 23 '18 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ Since I am bringing the mass from infinity to r, then how can dx be towards m, I think it should be towards M. $\endgroup$ Jan 24 '18 at 2:49
1
$\begingroup$

This is a mathematical issue purely. Your thinking and physical derivation is fine, you just perform a "backwards" integration. The issue appears in this step of yours:

$$ =\int_\infty^r \frac{GMm}{x^2} {dx}\ cos0$$

You integrate from a larger to a smaller value with $\int_\infty^r$.

Think of an integral in a geometric way: $\int_1^2$ is the area under the graph from point $1$ to $2$. So what is the flipped version $\int_2^1$? It is the "flipped" area from $1$ to $2$. The "negative" area, if you will. It will be added a minus sign mathematically. You must add a minus sign manually to "flip" it back if you wish to make "backwards" integration.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, now I understand it. I should write it as $$-\int_\infty^r \frac{GMm}{x^2} {dx}\ cos0$$ or $$\int_r^\infty \frac{GMm}{x^2} {dx}\ cos0$$. $\endgroup$ Jan 24 '18 at 12:37

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.