-2
$\begingroup$

Q. The gravitational field due to a mass distribution is given by $E=k/(x^3)$ in $x$-direction. Taking the gravitational potential to be zero at infinity, find its value at a distance $x$.

for the answer let the 'integral where the lower limit is infinity and upper limit x' be denoted as I

The answer my textbook gives to the above question is : enter image description here

shouldn't the dot product of E and dx (because we are traveling from infinity to a point) give - sign so the final answer should be negative.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I feel it is HCV $\endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 4:39
  • $\begingroup$ is it so @minigameZ more $\endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ see physics.stackexchange.com/questions/443988/… $\endgroup$
    – lamplamp
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 4:50
  • $\begingroup$ @PranavAggarwal yes, love this book :) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ @MinigameZmore me too $\endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 14:33

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

The final answer is written correctly, without a negative sign, as shown in the printed solution. The field is pointing in the +x direction.

$\vec{E} = -\frac{\mathrm{d}U }{\mathrm{d} x} \hat{x}$

If the potential at x was negative as your are suspecting, and 0 at infinity, the derivative is > 0 and negative derivative is <0 , giving a field pointing in the wrong direction. See the link posted:

Why does this line integral give the wrong sign?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If I differentiate the positive potential as in this case, I will get a negative field but that doesn't the case here, it's positive. $\endgroup$
    – Himanshu
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 5:21
  • $\begingroup$ The field is the negative derivative, not the positive $\endgroup$
    – lamplamp
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 5:40
1
$\begingroup$

While we derive the expression for line intergral we don't care for the sign of $\Delta x$ because that already taken into account with limits of integration.For example : consider the example given below in the comment box.

So it's as given in the book.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't agree with this. The minus sign you're talking about is already accounted for in the order of the limits of integration. Incorporating it into the line element double counts this sign. (Think about what would happen if every time you integrated a real function from 1 to 0, you also replaced $dx$ with $-dx$.) $\endgroup$
    – d_b
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ I know there is a flaw in my thinking but I'm not getting the point. How the limit are taking account for the dot product? Even the link to another question didn't any good for me. $\endgroup$
    – Himanshu
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 5:20
  • $\begingroup$ I think this might be too long to answer in comments. (I would suggest posting it as a question, but I think it might be marked duplicate with the question lamplamp linked.) But here is an example. Integrate the vector field $\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{r}) = \hat{\mathbf{x}}$ along the $x$-axis from $x = 1$ to $x = 0$. We expect the result to be $I = -1$. Following your prescription, we get $I = \int_{\gamma} \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{r} = \int_1^0 \hat{\mathbf{x}}\cdot(-\hat{\mathbf{x}} dx) = - \int_1^0 dx = 1$, which is incorrect. $\endgroup$
    – d_b
    Commented Nov 17, 2020 at 5:27
0
$\begingroup$

The question implies that there is a mass at origin. Since gravitational force is always attractive and when we move from $\infty$ to $x$ we travel in the direction of the force, the cross product $\vec{E}.\vec{dx}$ is positive.

Hence, $V(x)=-\int_{\infty}^{x}Edx$

The rest is according to the book.

The question states that "...mass distribution is given by ... in X-direction", which can be interpreted as: $$\vec{E}=\frac{K}{x^3} \hat i$$

At the very beginning of section 11.7 of the said book, it can be seen that the equation $V(\vec{r})=-\int_{r_0}^{r}\vec E.d\vec x$ has been derived by assuming that the particle is displaced from $\vec r$ to $\vec r +d\vec r$, but no assumption has been made about the direction of $\vec F$ or $\vec E$.

Hence the direction of $d\vec r$ would be implicitly taken care of by limits of the integral. But we can set the direction of the field aa per our need. Check J.G's post here

The integration would proceed like this:

$V(\vec{r})=-\int_{r_0}^{r}\vec E.d\vec x \\ \Rightarrow V(\vec{r})=-\int_{\infty}^{x}\frac{K}{x^3} \hat i . dx \hat i \\ \> \> \> \> = -\int_{\infty}^{x}\frac{K}{x^3}.dx$

SIDENOTE: In H.C. Verma's book, it is given that $V(\vec{r})=-\int_{\vec{r_0}}^{\vec{r}}\vec E.d\vec x$. But it must be noted that the limits of the integration cannot be taken as vectors.

$\endgroup$

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