0

Ultimately what I am trying to do here is convince myself that the following relationship holds: $$F = -\frac{dU}{dx}$$ for a force $F$ and a potential function $U$. We have that the work $W$ can be expressed as $$W = \int_C F \cdot dr$$ where $C$ is some sufficiently nice curve. Further, this video from MIT claims that if $F$ is conservative, $$\begin{align}U(x_f) - U(x_i) &= -\int_{x_i}^{x_f}F dx \\ &= \int_{x_i}^{x_f}\frac{dU}{dx}dx \end{align}$$ where the last equality is from the fundamental theorem of calculus. Comparing the last two integrals gives us $$F = -\frac{dU}{dx}$$ but this "derivation" seems to use some relationship between work and potential energy for conservative forces, namely $$W = -\big(U(x_f) - U(x_i)\big) = -\Delta U.$$ I am trying to understand why the last equation is true. Could anyone explain this?

Cross
  • 3,310
CBBAM
  • 3,098
  • 5
    $F = -\frac{dU}{dx}$ not $-\frac{dU}{dt}$ which has dimensions of power. – Cross Sep 21 '22 at 06:01
  • I do not see definition of potential in your question. You say you want to show that $F=-dU/dx$ (I'll assume your use of t is just typo) and at the same time you want to know why $W=-U_f+U_i$. So what is the definition of U? Usually its one of these two, so one of them simply needs to be accepted and only the other can be proven. – Umaxo Sep 21 '22 at 08:49
  • @Cross Yes that is a typo, sorry about that. – CBBAM Sep 21 '22 at 12:50
  • @Umaxo I assumed $U$ was any potential. I know mathematically one or the other has to be accepted, but I was wondering if there was a physical motivation behind one or the other. – CBBAM Sep 21 '22 at 12:51
  • You might just want to show that if a force exists, and is conservative, it can be obtained by differentiating some other scalar function, and derive one representation of that function. – Basican Sep 21 '22 at 20:34

2 Answers2

2

About the concept of potential energy:

Ultimately the basis of the concept of potential energy is the Work-Energy theorem.


The starting point for deriving the Work-Energy theorem is Newton's second law:

$$ F = ma \tag{1} $$

Integrate both sides with respect to the spatial coordinate, integrating from starting point $s_0$ to final point $s$

$$ \int_{s_0}^s F \ ds = \int_{s_0}^s ma \ ds \tag{2} $$

At this point we can develop the right hand side, by capitalizing on the fact that position and acceleration are not independent of each other.

$$ v = \frac{ds}{dt} \quad \leftrightarrow \quad ds = v \ dt \tag{3} $$

$$ a = \frac{dv}{dt} \quad \leftrightarrow \quad dv = a \ dt \tag{4} $$

I omit the factor $m$ temporarily, it is a multiplicative factor that is just carried over each step

$$ \int_{s_0}^s a \ ds \tag{5} $$

Use (3) to change the differential from $ds$ to $dt$. Since the differential is changed the limits change accordingly.

$$ \int_{t_0}^t a \ v \ dt \tag{6} $$

Change the order:

$$ \int_{t_0}^t v \ a \ dt \tag{7} $$

Change of differential according to (4), with corresponding change of limits.

$$ \int_{v_0}^v v \ dv \tag{8} $$

So we have:

$$ \int_{s_0}^s a \ ds = \tfrac{1}{2}v^2 - \tfrac{1}{2}v_0^2 \tag{9} $$

We multiply both sides with $m$, and then the right hand side of (9) gives us the right hand side of (2). The result: the Work-Energy theorem:

$$ \int_{s_0}^s F \ ds = \tfrac{1}{2}mv^2 - \tfrac{1}{2}mv_0^2 \tag{10} $$

The Work-Energy theorem provides the motivation to define the concept of potential energy.

Define potential energy as the negative of work done.

With that definition in place we have:

$$ - \Delta E_p = \Delta E_k \tag{11} $$

Relation (11) is applicable at any scale, down to infinitisimal scale. It follows that an object moving in a potential gradient will move according to the following differential equation:

$$ \frac{d(-E_p)}{ds} = \frac{dE_k}{ds} \tag{12} $$

Cleonis
  • 20,795
  • This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you! – CBBAM Sep 21 '22 at 17:45
  • 1
    @CBBAM with the concept of potential energy clarified, can I persuade you to focus on the answer I submitted to your question: "How to think of Lagrangians?" More specifically: As we know: F=ma can be recovered from Hamilton's stationary action. The work-energy theorem, being derived from F=ma, obviously has the property that F=ma can be recovered from it. Hamilton's stationary action and the work-energy theorem are very closely related. This view of what a Lagrangian is readily generalizes to disciplines other than classical mechanics. – Cleonis Sep 22 '22 at 21:07
  • Yes I had found your answer to that question very helpful, thank you again! I would have commented on it but the question was closed due to it being an apparent repost. – CBBAM Sep 22 '22 at 21:10
  • @CBBAM I understand the reasons for the stackexchange policy of flagging duplicate questions. As per stackexchange policy I should post my discussion as an answer to one of the (10 year old) existing questions. The problem is: the existing answers have been accumulating upvotes for 10 years. If I would submit to an existing question my contribution would be all the way at the bottom of the page, way out of sight. That's why for your question I evaded the 'duplicate question' policy. Anyway, I surmise you have moved on from thinking about what a Lagrangian is. – Cleonis Sep 22 '22 at 21:33
  • I agree with your viewpoint, it is often inconvenient to comment on old posts if something is unclear as it is unlikely the author still visits the site. But going back to Lagrangians, I will have to do some further studying on the matter but I believe I have a good grasp of what they are now and how they should be thought of. Thanks again! – CBBAM Sep 22 '22 at 21:52
-2

For conservative forces , potential energy obeys differential calculus , where as for non conservative forces potential energy does not obey differential calculus .