Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
html
Home | Science & Math | * Gravity | Gravity and Energy Share This Page
Introduction
The overview:
(2)
(3)
(4)
1 of 6 26/11/2010 17:05
Gravity and Energy http://www.arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html
Notice the minus sign in equation (4) above — it means that gravitational potential energy is negative. Because this is an
important property with cosmological significance, I would like to explain how it comes about.
The reader may recall my earlier remark than energy is the time integral of power, but this is just one example — in
mechanics, work (energy) can be expressed as the integral of force with respect to distance (x) rather than time:
(5)
Expressed in everyday language, work is equal to force times distance. Now we'll apply this to gravitation — here is the force
equation for gravitational attraction between two masses m1 and m2, separated by a distance r, and under the influence of the
gravitational constant term G:
(6)
Equation (6) is the classic expression of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation . To move from force to energy, we need to
integrate equation (6) with respect to distance (r):
(7)
Equation (7) tell us that negative gravitational potential energy is the correct physical interpretation, and it arises from
mathematics, not an arbitrary choice or convention.
One more thing — under General Relativity , gravity is not a force, instead it arises as a result of spacetime curvature. But in
ordinary circumstances the Newtonian conventions still apply, and energy is still a meaningful concept in orbital mechanics.
Conservation of Mass-Energy
NOTE: If the animations in this section distract the reader, one may click them to make them stop.
R emember that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. A more general way to say this is that
the universe has a constant quantity Q of mass-energy, fixed at the moment of the Big Bang and unchanged since. We'll
be discussing the quantity Q throughout this paper, and we'll eventually assign it a value.
Pendulum
(Click below to start or stop the animation)
As a mass moves in a gravitational field, it typically exchanges
kinetic and potential energy. A swinging pendulum (Figure 2)
has maximum kinetic energy at the lowest point in its swing,
and zero kinetic energy at the highest. The pendulum's
potential energy has the reverse relationship — it increases
(i.e. becomes less negative) with distance from the center of
the earth, and in exchange, the kinetic energy must decrease.
The important thing to understand about freely moving
objects in a gravitational field is that their energy, the sum of
kinetic and potential energy, is constant.
This doesn't mean the object's velocity will remain the same,
nor does it mean the object's kinetic and potential energy
values will remain the same. It means the total energy, the
sum of kinetic and potential energy, will remain constant.
For small-scale mechanical systems like the pendulum, it's convenient to establish an arbitrary zero point for potential energy.
In this case, the zero point is set at the bottom of the swing, so potential energy is pictured as increasing from zero to positive
values as the pendulum swings. This is a reasonable way to picture a physical system, but the absolute value of gravitational
potential energy is typically a much larger value, and is always negative.
Satellite
Pendulums don't usually get to swing in a vacuum with frictionless bearings, but an orbiting satellite is a better example of a
frictionless system. Like the pendulum, as the satellite orbits it carries both kinetic and potential energy:
2 of 6 26/11/2010 17:05
Gravity and Energy http://www.arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html
Here again are the equations for kinetic and potential energy (ek and ep), and a derived equation for total orbital energy (et):
To be consistent with the Principle of Energy Conservation , for a freely orbiting body with no external forces acting on it,
equation (10), the sum of kinetic and potential energies, always produces a constant.
Figure 3 shows a satellite in a very elliptical (oval-shaped) orbit around a central body. I chose this configuration to show that,
even though there is an ongoing exchange between kinetic (Click below to start or stop the animation)
and potential energy, as with the pendulum the total energy
remains constant. By the way, this orbital shape isn't
hypothetical — comets often have elongated orbits like this.
Many comets dwell far beyond Pluto and only rarely descend
into our neighborhood for a brief appearance.
(11)
(12)
Where M is the central mass, r is the orbital radius and G is the universal gravitational constant. It turns out that, for circular
orbits, the relationship between kinetic and potential energy is fixed, regardless of the orbit's other properties — the negative
gravitational potential energy is always twice the magnitude of the positive kinetic energy. Another way to say this is that, for a
circular orbit, 2/3 of the energy is negative potential and 1/3 is positive kinetic.
Escape Velocity
I n each of the cases examined so far — the pendulum as well as the elliptical and circular orbits — the sum of energies has
been negative, dominated by negative gravitational potential energy. Obviously we might select a very high velocity and
produce a positive result for equation (10) above, the total orbital energy. But is there an orbital velocity that exactly balances
the two kinds of energy and produces zero? Yes, there is — it's called escape velocity . Here is its value, using the terminology
from the previous section:
(13)
Escape velocity has some interesting properties. If an object is propelled away from an airless planet with an initial impulse of
escape velocity (sort of like Alan Shepard's famous golf shot on the moon, but a much higher velocity), that object will
continue to move away, at gradually decreasing speed, but it will never stop and return. In fact, at an infinite distance, an
escape-velocity object will achieve zero velocity. Here are the properties of an object initially given escape velocity:
The object has zero energy — positive kinetic energy ek and negative gravitational potential energy ep
are equal.
At an infinite distance, the object will achieve zero velocity.
Therefore escape velocity is the only case where, at an infinite time and distance, an object possesses zero energy and
achieves zero velocity.
There are two canonical orbital velocities — one is the circular velocity vo provided by equations (11) or (12), the other is
escape velocity (ve) provided by equation (13). Velocities greater than escape velocity ve or less than circular velocity vo
produce interesting effects, like the large family of elliptical orbits resulting from initial velocities in the range 0 < v < vo and
shown in Figure 3 above. But because escape velocity has properties of cosmological significance, it merits a closer look.
Because of its importance to what follows, we should prove that escape velocity results in zero net energy (i.e. ek + ep = 0).
First, let's simplify equation (10) — let's normalize the mass of the orbiting body m1 to 1. Here is the result:
3 of 6 26/11/2010 17:05
Gravity and Energy http://www.arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html
(14)
Remember that equation (14) provides the total energy of an orbiting body, the sum of positive kinetic and negative potential
energy. At this point, those sufficiently adept at mathematics will compare equations (13) (escape velocity) and (14) (total
energy) and a light bulb will go off. For the rest of us, here's a step-by-step proof:
(15)
Q.E.D. An object given escape velocity will have zero orbital energy, and very important, this is only true at escape velocity, no
other.
Cosmological Implications
Big Bang
W hen Georges Lemaître first proposed the Big Bang theory, there were a number of objections — at the time there
was no evidence in support of the idea, it seemed counterintuitive, and it appeared to violate basic physical principles.
How could the universe arise out of nothing?
But over the years, evidence has begun to accumulate that the Big Bang may be real:
Astronomer Edwin Hubble detected a systematic redshift in the spectra of distant galaxies (more distant galaxies have
proportionally more redshift), and this was eventually taken to mean those galaxies were moving away from each other
and us.
Physicist George Gamow conjectured that, if the Big Bang was real, there would be a residual radiation left over from
the exceedingly high temperatures of the explosion, but very much redshifted, all the way into the microwave region of
the spectrum and with a characteristic temperature of about 5 Kelvins.
Radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson inadvertently discovered this microwave signal, now known as the
cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation , and this signal has become the subject of intense study.
All this evidence has given the Big Bang the status of a scientific theory, that is to say, a theory supported by evidence and
falsifiable in principle. But one objection to the Big Bang remains, and it is serious — there is no physical law so
well-established as the conservation of mass-energy, and the Big Bang seems to violate it. By creating an entire universe of
mass-energy out of nothing, the Big Bang seems to break the most basic rule of physics: no free lunch.
But this final objection is answered by the idea expressed in this article — if the universe began with an exact balance between
positive mass-energy and negative gravitational potential energy, the law of mass-energy conservation is honored.
For this condition to be met, the Big Bang would have to create the universe with an exact balance between positive
mass-energy and negative gravitational potential energy, so the total mass-energy is equal to zero. Therefore the Big Bang
would have to give matter an initial velocity exactly equal to escape velocity. Is there any evidence for this? In a word, yes.
It turns out there is a relationship between the average velocity of matter in the expanding universe, and the overall
curvature of spacetime . Since the beginning of Big Bang cosmology, the spacetime curvature issue has been much studied,
with three likely outcomes:
Terms:
Density Parameter Ω
Energy total Q Graphic (click images for 3D)
Description
Velocity V
Triangle Sum θ
4 of 6 26/11/2010 17:05
Gravity and Energy http://www.arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html
Expansion velocity is
greater than escape
Ω < 1.0
velocity, positive
Q>0
mass-energy predominates,
V > ve
space is negatively curved,
θ < 180°
expansion will not converge
with zero.
I emphasize the above table summarizes conditions near the time of the Big Bang. The recent discovery of Dark Energy as an
acceleration term in universal expansion doesn't change the physics for that era because positive mass-energy and negative
gravitational energy were both much larger factors than dark energy.
The above table suggests that, if space is classically flat or Cartesian, this supports the zero-energy condition required for the
Big Bang to create the universe without violating energy conservation. And there is good evidence that space is flat. This
doesn't mean there isn't local strong curvature near masses, it means the overall large-scale curvature of spacetime is flat.
Quantum Uncertainty
It has been recently suggested that, if the Big Bang could impart escape velocity to the universe's matter — thus balancing
positive and negative energy — a random quantum fluctuation could have brought the universe into existence. To those
unfamiliar with quantum ideas this may seem absurd — aren't quantum effects limited to extremely small scales?
Well, no — quantum effects are a matter of probability, not possibility. On a microscopic scale, quantum effects are routine and
must be taken into account. But there's no "quantum barrier" that separates large-scale reality from the microscopic scale. It is
a simple matter of statistics — the probability of a macroscopic quantum effect is inversely proportional to the mass under
consideration. Consider this expression:
(16)
Where:
∆ x = uncertainly in position
∆ p = uncertainly in momentum
= Planck's Constant adjusted
The above relation, known as Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle , describes the role of uncertainly in quantum theory. Instead
of denying the possibility of large-scale quantum effects, this principle gives them a probability estimate. And the outcome is
that, for large masses, one might have to wait a very long time to see a manifestation of quantum uncertainly at a macroscopic
scale — maybe even a billion years. But a billion years seems like reasonable time to wait for a universe.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ... Spontaneous creation is the
reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." — Stephen Hawking in "The Grand
Design" .
Notes
Further Reading:
Conservation of Energy
Newton (unit of force)
Watt (unit of power)
Joule (unit of energy)
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Gravitational potential energy
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
Orbital speed
Escape velocity
Shape of the Universe
5 of 6 26/11/2010 17:05
Gravity and Energy http://www.arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html
Dark Energy
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Home | Science & Math | * Gravity | Gravity and Energy Share This Page
6 of 6 26/11/2010 17:05