Magnitude of vector quantitiesPotential energy sign conventionsSeparating the potential energy of a system of particles.Why do particles of equal mass (with one at rest) undergoing elastic collisions scatter at only right angles?Solving Lagrangian equations of motion for two point-bodies with gravitational interactionDeriving an equation for the mass of a pendulum (Follow up)?Work Done by Gravitational ForceWhy does gravity becomes negative when finding the negative derivative of potential? (I know $F=-dU/dx$) Why is $F$ itself negative?What does it mean if the dot product of two vectors is negative?Work done to change circular orbit and orbital speedSign in $Delta U= -intvecFcdot dvecl$

How does the 'five minute adventuring day' affect class balance?

Disk usage confusion: 10G missing on Linux home partition on SSD

Does a lens with a bigger max. aperture focus faster than a lens with a smaller max. aperture?

Why are examinees often not allowed to leave during the start and end of an exam?

What is this fluorinated organic substance?

How can this fractal shape perfectly cover a certain platonic solid?

What was the ASCII end of medium (EM) character intended to be used for?

What happens if a caster is surprised while casting a spell with a long casting time?

How to count the number of bytes in a file, grouping the same bytes?

How soon after takeoff can you recline your airplane seat?

Why isn't UDP with reliability (implemented at Application layer) a substitute of TCP?

Why would Dementors torture a Death Eater if they are loyal to Voldemort?

What verb goes with "coup"?

Denied entry in Croatia Border

What's the overlapping calendar of two different lunar cycles

How to track mail undetectably?

How is it possible for tall trees to pull water to heights more than 10m?

Rear derailleur got caught in the spokes, what could be a root cause

Does "boire un jus" tend to mean "coffee" or "juice of fruit"?

Angle Between Two Vectors Facing A Point

"in 60 seconds or less" or "in 60 seconds or fewer"?

What was the first science fiction or fantasy multiple choice book?

How does mmorpg store data?

What would you need merely the term "collection" for pitches, but not "scale"?



Magnitude of vector quantities


Potential energy sign conventionsSeparating the potential energy of a system of particles.Why do particles of equal mass (with one at rest) undergoing elastic collisions scatter at only right angles?Solving Lagrangian equations of motion for two point-bodies with gravitational interactionDeriving an equation for the mass of a pendulum (Follow up)?Work Done by Gravitational ForceWhy does gravity becomes negative when finding the negative derivative of potential? (I know $F=-dU/dx$) Why is $F$ itself negative?What does it mean if the dot product of two vectors is negative?Work done to change circular orbit and orbital speedSign in $Delta U= -intvecFcdot dvecl$













2












$begingroup$


The gravitational force in the vector form is defined as $$ vecF=-fracGMmboldsymbol r^3vecr$$
Many textbooks define its magnitude as $$F_g=-fracGMmr^2$$



However, in the derivation of the gravitational potential energy $U_g=-fracGMmr$ $$W_textby gravity=int_c vecF_textgrav cdot mboxd vecr=int_r1^r2 F mboxdr cos(180^circ)=-int_r1^r2 F mboxdr$$
$$=-int_r1^r2 fracGMmr^2 mboxdr=+fracGMmrBiggr|^r_2_r_1=fracGMmr_2-fracGMmr_1$$



where $r_2>r_1$



since $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$



$$Delta U_g=U_2-U_1=GMm Big(frac1r_1-frac1r_2Big)$$



setting $r_2=infty$, $U_2=0$



$$-U_1=GMmfrac1r_1$$



Therefore $$U=-fracGMmr$$



which implies that the correct way of writing the magnitude should be $F=fracGMmr^2$ (i.e. no minus sign) since the direction has already been taken into account(by cos(180)) during the dot product operation.



So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?



I'm having the same trouble when dealing with the force exerted by a spring in Hooke's Law, e.g. in the derivation of the EPE:



$$W_s=int vecF_s cdot mboxdvecx=int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx cos(180^circ)=-int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx$$
Using $Delta U_s=-W_s$ will yield $U_s=frac12kx^2$, which again implies that $F_s=kx$ (rather than $F_s=-kx$)



But in other derivations like the effective spring constant of a certain combination, $F_s=-kx$ is used instead.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I would recommend you to read the definition of change in potential energy of a system.
    $endgroup$
    – Unique
    Jun 23 at 12:29










  • $begingroup$
    @Unique Yes and isn't $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$ consistent with this definition?
    $endgroup$
    – EXINT
    Jun 23 at 13:54
















2












$begingroup$


The gravitational force in the vector form is defined as $$ vecF=-fracGMmboldsymbol r^3vecr$$
Many textbooks define its magnitude as $$F_g=-fracGMmr^2$$



However, in the derivation of the gravitational potential energy $U_g=-fracGMmr$ $$W_textby gravity=int_c vecF_textgrav cdot mboxd vecr=int_r1^r2 F mboxdr cos(180^circ)=-int_r1^r2 F mboxdr$$
$$=-int_r1^r2 fracGMmr^2 mboxdr=+fracGMmrBiggr|^r_2_r_1=fracGMmr_2-fracGMmr_1$$



where $r_2>r_1$



since $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$



$$Delta U_g=U_2-U_1=GMm Big(frac1r_1-frac1r_2Big)$$



setting $r_2=infty$, $U_2=0$



$$-U_1=GMmfrac1r_1$$



Therefore $$U=-fracGMmr$$



which implies that the correct way of writing the magnitude should be $F=fracGMmr^2$ (i.e. no minus sign) since the direction has already been taken into account(by cos(180)) during the dot product operation.



So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?



I'm having the same trouble when dealing with the force exerted by a spring in Hooke's Law, e.g. in the derivation of the EPE:



$$W_s=int vecF_s cdot mboxdvecx=int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx cos(180^circ)=-int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx$$
Using $Delta U_s=-W_s$ will yield $U_s=frac12kx^2$, which again implies that $F_s=kx$ (rather than $F_s=-kx$)



But in other derivations like the effective spring constant of a certain combination, $F_s=-kx$ is used instead.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I would recommend you to read the definition of change in potential energy of a system.
    $endgroup$
    – Unique
    Jun 23 at 12:29










  • $begingroup$
    @Unique Yes and isn't $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$ consistent with this definition?
    $endgroup$
    – EXINT
    Jun 23 at 13:54














2












2








2





$begingroup$


The gravitational force in the vector form is defined as $$ vecF=-fracGMmboldsymbol r^3vecr$$
Many textbooks define its magnitude as $$F_g=-fracGMmr^2$$



However, in the derivation of the gravitational potential energy $U_g=-fracGMmr$ $$W_textby gravity=int_c vecF_textgrav cdot mboxd vecr=int_r1^r2 F mboxdr cos(180^circ)=-int_r1^r2 F mboxdr$$
$$=-int_r1^r2 fracGMmr^2 mboxdr=+fracGMmrBiggr|^r_2_r_1=fracGMmr_2-fracGMmr_1$$



where $r_2>r_1$



since $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$



$$Delta U_g=U_2-U_1=GMm Big(frac1r_1-frac1r_2Big)$$



setting $r_2=infty$, $U_2=0$



$$-U_1=GMmfrac1r_1$$



Therefore $$U=-fracGMmr$$



which implies that the correct way of writing the magnitude should be $F=fracGMmr^2$ (i.e. no minus sign) since the direction has already been taken into account(by cos(180)) during the dot product operation.



So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?



I'm having the same trouble when dealing with the force exerted by a spring in Hooke's Law, e.g. in the derivation of the EPE:



$$W_s=int vecF_s cdot mboxdvecx=int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx cos(180^circ)=-int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx$$
Using $Delta U_s=-W_s$ will yield $U_s=frac12kx^2$, which again implies that $F_s=kx$ (rather than $F_s=-kx$)



But in other derivations like the effective spring constant of a certain combination, $F_s=-kx$ is used instead.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




The gravitational force in the vector form is defined as $$ vecF=-fracGMmboldsymbol r^3vecr$$
Many textbooks define its magnitude as $$F_g=-fracGMmr^2$$



However, in the derivation of the gravitational potential energy $U_g=-fracGMmr$ $$W_textby gravity=int_c vecF_textgrav cdot mboxd vecr=int_r1^r2 F mboxdr cos(180^circ)=-int_r1^r2 F mboxdr$$
$$=-int_r1^r2 fracGMmr^2 mboxdr=+fracGMmrBiggr|^r_2_r_1=fracGMmr_2-fracGMmr_1$$



where $r_2>r_1$



since $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$



$$Delta U_g=U_2-U_1=GMm Big(frac1r_1-frac1r_2Big)$$



setting $r_2=infty$, $U_2=0$



$$-U_1=GMmfrac1r_1$$



Therefore $$U=-fracGMmr$$



which implies that the correct way of writing the magnitude should be $F=fracGMmr^2$ (i.e. no minus sign) since the direction has already been taken into account(by cos(180)) during the dot product operation.



So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?



I'm having the same trouble when dealing with the force exerted by a spring in Hooke's Law, e.g. in the derivation of the EPE:



$$W_s=int vecF_s cdot mboxdvecx=int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx cos(180^circ)=-int_x_1^x2kx mboxdx$$
Using $Delta U_s=-W_s$ will yield $U_s=frac12kx^2$, which again implies that $F_s=kx$ (rather than $F_s=-kx$)



But in other derivations like the effective spring constant of a certain combination, $F_s=-kx$ is used instead.







newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity work potential-energy vectors






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jun 23 at 18:49









Qmechanic

110k12 gold badges211 silver badges1295 bronze badges




110k12 gold badges211 silver badges1295 bronze badges










asked Jun 23 at 8:04









EXINTEXINT

12311 bronze badges




12311 bronze badges







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I would recommend you to read the definition of change in potential energy of a system.
    $endgroup$
    – Unique
    Jun 23 at 12:29










  • $begingroup$
    @Unique Yes and isn't $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$ consistent with this definition?
    $endgroup$
    – EXINT
    Jun 23 at 13:54













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I would recommend you to read the definition of change in potential energy of a system.
    $endgroup$
    – Unique
    Jun 23 at 12:29










  • $begingroup$
    @Unique Yes and isn't $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$ consistent with this definition?
    $endgroup$
    – EXINT
    Jun 23 at 13:54








1




1




$begingroup$
I would recommend you to read the definition of change in potential energy of a system.
$endgroup$
– Unique
Jun 23 at 12:29




$begingroup$
I would recommend you to read the definition of change in potential energy of a system.
$endgroup$
– Unique
Jun 23 at 12:29












$begingroup$
@Unique Yes and isn't $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$ consistent with this definition?
$endgroup$
– EXINT
Jun 23 at 13:54





$begingroup$
@Unique Yes and isn't $Delta U_g=-W_by.grav$ consistent with this definition?
$endgroup$
– EXINT
Jun 23 at 13:54











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

The formula
$$F_G = - G fracM mr^2$$
is correct. The minus sign represents the fact that the gravitational force is attractive.



There is a small mistake in your calculation of $W_G$, when you substitute $F_G$ with its formula. The formula for $F_G$ contains a minus sign that should have cancelled the minus before the integral:
$$- int_r_1^r_2 F mboxdr = int_r_1^r_2 G fracM mr^2 mboxdr$$
I also suppose that, since you used $cos(180°)$, you are considering the case where $r_2$ > $r_1$.



From this you derive that
$$W_G = GMm left( frac1r_1 - frac1r_2 right)$$
and this is indeed positive, because you need energy to separate two objects that are attracting each other.



For a conservative force, such as the gravitational force or the elastic force, work is also defined as $W = - Delta U$, where $Delta U$ is the change in potential energy. Notice the minus sign here. There is a reason for it. Work, as I said above, is the energy needed to go from one place to another. It's positive when you need to give energy and negative when you obtain energy (usually kinetic energy). The potential on the other hand has a different interpretation, it's one component of the energy possessed by an object.



Since we are usually interested in the difference in potential energy, and not its absolute value, we have a certain freedom to choose when the potential energy is 0. Usually for the gravitational case 0 is chosen as the potential energy at infinite distance, while for the elastic case it's at the rest position ($x = 0$).



So if
$$W_G = G fracM mr_1 - G fracM mr_2$$
and
$$W_G = - Delta U = U(r_1) - U(r_2)$$
we obtain that
$$U(r) = - G fracM mr$$
No need to change the sign of $F$. And the same principle applies to the elastic case.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Does $W_G$ denote the work done against gravity here? In my derivation $W_G$ is actually the work done by gravity (apologies for not clarifying....) which I thought is negative whenever $r_2$>$r_1$ . If $W_G$ is the work done BY gravity then is there still an error?
    $endgroup$
    – EXINT
    Jun 23 at 11:25











  • $begingroup$
    @EXINT The only difference between work done against gravity and by gravity is the sign of the result, the starting formula is the same. You obtain the wrong sign because of the mistake I corrected in the second formula in my answer. Gravitational work should always be positive when $r_2 > r_1$.
    $endgroup$
    – GRB
    Jun 23 at 12:05










  • $begingroup$
    But shouldn't it be negative if $ boldsymbolr $ is the outward-pointing radial vector since the work done by gravity Is against the direction of motion $(r_2>r_1)$?
    $endgroup$
    – EXINT
    Jun 23 at 13:57











  • $begingroup$
    @EXINT That's not how work is defined. Work is the amount of energy that has to be invested in order to reach a goal.
    $endgroup$
    – GRB
    Jun 24 at 8:19


















2












$begingroup$

I would not provide the whole derivation for the expression of potential energy of a system but I would like to give you the correct reasoning for the signs which have to be taken into consideration while deriving the expressions of potential energy.please consider the definition below which may help you:-



The change in potential energy of a system is defined as the negative of work done by the internal conservative forces of the system.



The negative sign will effect some equations you posted.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$


    So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?




    The answer is yes, you just remember magnitude without negative sign as negative just suggest direction and says it is attractive force. So in whole physics to understand easily never put negative in front of magnitudes as they just suggest direction only.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487579%2fmagnitude-of-vector-quantities%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$

      The formula
      $$F_G = - G fracM mr^2$$
      is correct. The minus sign represents the fact that the gravitational force is attractive.



      There is a small mistake in your calculation of $W_G$, when you substitute $F_G$ with its formula. The formula for $F_G$ contains a minus sign that should have cancelled the minus before the integral:
      $$- int_r_1^r_2 F mboxdr = int_r_1^r_2 G fracM mr^2 mboxdr$$
      I also suppose that, since you used $cos(180°)$, you are considering the case where $r_2$ > $r_1$.



      From this you derive that
      $$W_G = GMm left( frac1r_1 - frac1r_2 right)$$
      and this is indeed positive, because you need energy to separate two objects that are attracting each other.



      For a conservative force, such as the gravitational force or the elastic force, work is also defined as $W = - Delta U$, where $Delta U$ is the change in potential energy. Notice the minus sign here. There is a reason for it. Work, as I said above, is the energy needed to go from one place to another. It's positive when you need to give energy and negative when you obtain energy (usually kinetic energy). The potential on the other hand has a different interpretation, it's one component of the energy possessed by an object.



      Since we are usually interested in the difference in potential energy, and not its absolute value, we have a certain freedom to choose when the potential energy is 0. Usually for the gravitational case 0 is chosen as the potential energy at infinite distance, while for the elastic case it's at the rest position ($x = 0$).



      So if
      $$W_G = G fracM mr_1 - G fracM mr_2$$
      and
      $$W_G = - Delta U = U(r_1) - U(r_2)$$
      we obtain that
      $$U(r) = - G fracM mr$$
      No need to change the sign of $F$. And the same principle applies to the elastic case.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Does $W_G$ denote the work done against gravity here? In my derivation $W_G$ is actually the work done by gravity (apologies for not clarifying....) which I thought is negative whenever $r_2$>$r_1$ . If $W_G$ is the work done BY gravity then is there still an error?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 11:25











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT The only difference between work done against gravity and by gravity is the sign of the result, the starting formula is the same. You obtain the wrong sign because of the mistake I corrected in the second formula in my answer. Gravitational work should always be positive when $r_2 > r_1$.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 23 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        But shouldn't it be negative if $ boldsymbolr $ is the outward-pointing radial vector since the work done by gravity Is against the direction of motion $(r_2>r_1)$?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 13:57











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT That's not how work is defined. Work is the amount of energy that has to be invested in order to reach a goal.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 24 at 8:19















      3












      $begingroup$

      The formula
      $$F_G = - G fracM mr^2$$
      is correct. The minus sign represents the fact that the gravitational force is attractive.



      There is a small mistake in your calculation of $W_G$, when you substitute $F_G$ with its formula. The formula for $F_G$ contains a minus sign that should have cancelled the minus before the integral:
      $$- int_r_1^r_2 F mboxdr = int_r_1^r_2 G fracM mr^2 mboxdr$$
      I also suppose that, since you used $cos(180°)$, you are considering the case where $r_2$ > $r_1$.



      From this you derive that
      $$W_G = GMm left( frac1r_1 - frac1r_2 right)$$
      and this is indeed positive, because you need energy to separate two objects that are attracting each other.



      For a conservative force, such as the gravitational force or the elastic force, work is also defined as $W = - Delta U$, where $Delta U$ is the change in potential energy. Notice the minus sign here. There is a reason for it. Work, as I said above, is the energy needed to go from one place to another. It's positive when you need to give energy and negative when you obtain energy (usually kinetic energy). The potential on the other hand has a different interpretation, it's one component of the energy possessed by an object.



      Since we are usually interested in the difference in potential energy, and not its absolute value, we have a certain freedom to choose when the potential energy is 0. Usually for the gravitational case 0 is chosen as the potential energy at infinite distance, while for the elastic case it's at the rest position ($x = 0$).



      So if
      $$W_G = G fracM mr_1 - G fracM mr_2$$
      and
      $$W_G = - Delta U = U(r_1) - U(r_2)$$
      we obtain that
      $$U(r) = - G fracM mr$$
      No need to change the sign of $F$. And the same principle applies to the elastic case.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Does $W_G$ denote the work done against gravity here? In my derivation $W_G$ is actually the work done by gravity (apologies for not clarifying....) which I thought is negative whenever $r_2$>$r_1$ . If $W_G$ is the work done BY gravity then is there still an error?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 11:25











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT The only difference between work done against gravity and by gravity is the sign of the result, the starting formula is the same. You obtain the wrong sign because of the mistake I corrected in the second formula in my answer. Gravitational work should always be positive when $r_2 > r_1$.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 23 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        But shouldn't it be negative if $ boldsymbolr $ is the outward-pointing radial vector since the work done by gravity Is against the direction of motion $(r_2>r_1)$?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 13:57











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT That's not how work is defined. Work is the amount of energy that has to be invested in order to reach a goal.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 24 at 8:19













      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$

      The formula
      $$F_G = - G fracM mr^2$$
      is correct. The minus sign represents the fact that the gravitational force is attractive.



      There is a small mistake in your calculation of $W_G$, when you substitute $F_G$ with its formula. The formula for $F_G$ contains a minus sign that should have cancelled the minus before the integral:
      $$- int_r_1^r_2 F mboxdr = int_r_1^r_2 G fracM mr^2 mboxdr$$
      I also suppose that, since you used $cos(180°)$, you are considering the case where $r_2$ > $r_1$.



      From this you derive that
      $$W_G = GMm left( frac1r_1 - frac1r_2 right)$$
      and this is indeed positive, because you need energy to separate two objects that are attracting each other.



      For a conservative force, such as the gravitational force or the elastic force, work is also defined as $W = - Delta U$, where $Delta U$ is the change in potential energy. Notice the minus sign here. There is a reason for it. Work, as I said above, is the energy needed to go from one place to another. It's positive when you need to give energy and negative when you obtain energy (usually kinetic energy). The potential on the other hand has a different interpretation, it's one component of the energy possessed by an object.



      Since we are usually interested in the difference in potential energy, and not its absolute value, we have a certain freedom to choose when the potential energy is 0. Usually for the gravitational case 0 is chosen as the potential energy at infinite distance, while for the elastic case it's at the rest position ($x = 0$).



      So if
      $$W_G = G fracM mr_1 - G fracM mr_2$$
      and
      $$W_G = - Delta U = U(r_1) - U(r_2)$$
      we obtain that
      $$U(r) = - G fracM mr$$
      No need to change the sign of $F$. And the same principle applies to the elastic case.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      The formula
      $$F_G = - G fracM mr^2$$
      is correct. The minus sign represents the fact that the gravitational force is attractive.



      There is a small mistake in your calculation of $W_G$, when you substitute $F_G$ with its formula. The formula for $F_G$ contains a minus sign that should have cancelled the minus before the integral:
      $$- int_r_1^r_2 F mboxdr = int_r_1^r_2 G fracM mr^2 mboxdr$$
      I also suppose that, since you used $cos(180°)$, you are considering the case where $r_2$ > $r_1$.



      From this you derive that
      $$W_G = GMm left( frac1r_1 - frac1r_2 right)$$
      and this is indeed positive, because you need energy to separate two objects that are attracting each other.



      For a conservative force, such as the gravitational force or the elastic force, work is also defined as $W = - Delta U$, where $Delta U$ is the change in potential energy. Notice the minus sign here. There is a reason for it. Work, as I said above, is the energy needed to go from one place to another. It's positive when you need to give energy and negative when you obtain energy (usually kinetic energy). The potential on the other hand has a different interpretation, it's one component of the energy possessed by an object.



      Since we are usually interested in the difference in potential energy, and not its absolute value, we have a certain freedom to choose when the potential energy is 0. Usually for the gravitational case 0 is chosen as the potential energy at infinite distance, while for the elastic case it's at the rest position ($x = 0$).



      So if
      $$W_G = G fracM mr_1 - G fracM mr_2$$
      and
      $$W_G = - Delta U = U(r_1) - U(r_2)$$
      we obtain that
      $$U(r) = - G fracM mr$$
      No need to change the sign of $F$. And the same principle applies to the elastic case.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Jun 23 at 9:21









      GRBGRB

      1,0491 gold badge10 silver badges24 bronze badges




      1,0491 gold badge10 silver badges24 bronze badges











      • $begingroup$
        Does $W_G$ denote the work done against gravity here? In my derivation $W_G$ is actually the work done by gravity (apologies for not clarifying....) which I thought is negative whenever $r_2$>$r_1$ . If $W_G$ is the work done BY gravity then is there still an error?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 11:25











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT The only difference between work done against gravity and by gravity is the sign of the result, the starting formula is the same. You obtain the wrong sign because of the mistake I corrected in the second formula in my answer. Gravitational work should always be positive when $r_2 > r_1$.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 23 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        But shouldn't it be negative if $ boldsymbolr $ is the outward-pointing radial vector since the work done by gravity Is against the direction of motion $(r_2>r_1)$?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 13:57











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT That's not how work is defined. Work is the amount of energy that has to be invested in order to reach a goal.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 24 at 8:19
















      • $begingroup$
        Does $W_G$ denote the work done against gravity here? In my derivation $W_G$ is actually the work done by gravity (apologies for not clarifying....) which I thought is negative whenever $r_2$>$r_1$ . If $W_G$ is the work done BY gravity then is there still an error?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 11:25











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT The only difference between work done against gravity and by gravity is the sign of the result, the starting formula is the same. You obtain the wrong sign because of the mistake I corrected in the second formula in my answer. Gravitational work should always be positive when $r_2 > r_1$.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 23 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        But shouldn't it be negative if $ boldsymbolr $ is the outward-pointing radial vector since the work done by gravity Is against the direction of motion $(r_2>r_1)$?
        $endgroup$
        – EXINT
        Jun 23 at 13:57











      • $begingroup$
        @EXINT That's not how work is defined. Work is the amount of energy that has to be invested in order to reach a goal.
        $endgroup$
        – GRB
        Jun 24 at 8:19















      $begingroup$
      Does $W_G$ denote the work done against gravity here? In my derivation $W_G$ is actually the work done by gravity (apologies for not clarifying....) which I thought is negative whenever $r_2$>$r_1$ . If $W_G$ is the work done BY gravity then is there still an error?
      $endgroup$
      – EXINT
      Jun 23 at 11:25





      $begingroup$
      Does $W_G$ denote the work done against gravity here? In my derivation $W_G$ is actually the work done by gravity (apologies for not clarifying....) which I thought is negative whenever $r_2$>$r_1$ . If $W_G$ is the work done BY gravity then is there still an error?
      $endgroup$
      – EXINT
      Jun 23 at 11:25













      $begingroup$
      @EXINT The only difference between work done against gravity and by gravity is the sign of the result, the starting formula is the same. You obtain the wrong sign because of the mistake I corrected in the second formula in my answer. Gravitational work should always be positive when $r_2 > r_1$.
      $endgroup$
      – GRB
      Jun 23 at 12:05




      $begingroup$
      @EXINT The only difference between work done against gravity and by gravity is the sign of the result, the starting formula is the same. You obtain the wrong sign because of the mistake I corrected in the second formula in my answer. Gravitational work should always be positive when $r_2 > r_1$.
      $endgroup$
      – GRB
      Jun 23 at 12:05












      $begingroup$
      But shouldn't it be negative if $ boldsymbolr $ is the outward-pointing radial vector since the work done by gravity Is against the direction of motion $(r_2>r_1)$?
      $endgroup$
      – EXINT
      Jun 23 at 13:57





      $begingroup$
      But shouldn't it be negative if $ boldsymbolr $ is the outward-pointing radial vector since the work done by gravity Is against the direction of motion $(r_2>r_1)$?
      $endgroup$
      – EXINT
      Jun 23 at 13:57













      $begingroup$
      @EXINT That's not how work is defined. Work is the amount of energy that has to be invested in order to reach a goal.
      $endgroup$
      – GRB
      Jun 24 at 8:19




      $begingroup$
      @EXINT That's not how work is defined. Work is the amount of energy that has to be invested in order to reach a goal.
      $endgroup$
      – GRB
      Jun 24 at 8:19











      2












      $begingroup$

      I would not provide the whole derivation for the expression of potential energy of a system but I would like to give you the correct reasoning for the signs which have to be taken into consideration while deriving the expressions of potential energy.please consider the definition below which may help you:-



      The change in potential energy of a system is defined as the negative of work done by the internal conservative forces of the system.



      The negative sign will effect some equations you posted.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        2












        $begingroup$

        I would not provide the whole derivation for the expression of potential energy of a system but I would like to give you the correct reasoning for the signs which have to be taken into consideration while deriving the expressions of potential energy.please consider the definition below which may help you:-



        The change in potential energy of a system is defined as the negative of work done by the internal conservative forces of the system.



        The negative sign will effect some equations you posted.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          I would not provide the whole derivation for the expression of potential energy of a system but I would like to give you the correct reasoning for the signs which have to be taken into consideration while deriving the expressions of potential energy.please consider the definition below which may help you:-



          The change in potential energy of a system is defined as the negative of work done by the internal conservative forces of the system.



          The negative sign will effect some equations you posted.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I would not provide the whole derivation for the expression of potential energy of a system but I would like to give you the correct reasoning for the signs which have to be taken into consideration while deriving the expressions of potential energy.please consider the definition below which may help you:-



          The change in potential energy of a system is defined as the negative of work done by the internal conservative forces of the system.



          The negative sign will effect some equations you posted.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jun 23 at 12:27









          UniqueUnique

          1




          1





















              0












              $begingroup$


              So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?




              The answer is yes, you just remember magnitude without negative sign as negative just suggest direction and says it is attractive force. So in whole physics to understand easily never put negative in front of magnitudes as they just suggest direction only.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$


                So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?




                The answer is yes, you just remember magnitude without negative sign as negative just suggest direction and says it is attractive force. So in whole physics to understand easily never put negative in front of magnitudes as they just suggest direction only.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$


                  So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?




                  The answer is yes, you just remember magnitude without negative sign as negative just suggest direction and says it is attractive force. So in whole physics to understand easily never put negative in front of magnitudes as they just suggest direction only.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$




                  So should I always use the expression of the magnitude without the negative sign because the direction of the force is only to be considered "later" in a sense that the negative sign should not be part of the magnitude?




                  The answer is yes, you just remember magnitude without negative sign as negative just suggest direction and says it is attractive force. So in whole physics to understand easily never put negative in front of magnitudes as they just suggest direction only.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Jun 23 at 11:24









                  MarianD

                  9451 gold badge6 silver badges12 bronze badges




                  9451 gold badge6 silver badges12 bronze badges










                  answered Jun 23 at 8:17









                  sarthaksarthak

                  285 bronze badges




                  285 bronze badges



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487579%2fmagnitude-of-vector-quantities%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                      Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

                      Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?