2015-06-08 21:10:30 8 Comments

I'm learning about work in my dynamics class right now. We have defined the work on a particle due to the force field from point A to point B as the curve Integral over the force field from point A to B. From math I know that if a vector field has a potential, we only need to evaluate the potential at point B minus the potential at point A to get the result of the curve Integral. In the text that I'm reading, it's explained that if the integral over a force-field is path-independent, then the force field $F = -{\rm grad}(V)$, where $V$ is the potential. Why is it defined as the negative gradient? Doesn't one determine the potential from $F$ mathematically. Why do we impose the sign on the potential?

### Related Questions

#### Sponsored Content

#### 4 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Potential energy sign conventions

**2013-05-15 12:26:12****grjj3****4141**View**3**Score**4**Answer- Tags: newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity potential-energy conventions

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Do force fields come from potential fields, or do potential come from forces?

**2018-06-29 08:22:34****user464014****76**View**1**Score**1**Answer- Tags: forces potential potential-energy vector-fields conservative-field

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Why is the potential energy of spring negative while it's positive for a dipole?

**2018-05-27 17:10:09****salvin****102**View**0**Score**1**Answer- Tags: potential-energy conventions spring dipole

#### 3 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Why is there a minus in the definition of the electric potential?

**2017-03-01 07:54:56****Nasir Mahmood****2400**View**1**Score**3**Answer- Tags: electrostatics electric-fields potential potential-energy conventions

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Relation between conservative force and potential energy

**2017-02-23 14:25:32****Piyush Raut****5392**View**1**Score**2**Answer- Tags: forces work potential-energy conventions conservative-field

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Why gravitational potential is negative, as displacement and force are in the same direction?

**2017-01-03 19:05:57****Ahmad****222**View**0**Score**1**Answer- Tags: newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity work potential-energy conventions

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Centrifugal potential and gradient

**2017-01-02 21:05:49****Sha Vuklia****523**View**0**Score**1**Answer- Tags: forces potential-energy coordinate-systems differentiation textbook-erratum

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Why does the gravitation potential in a uniform field have negative values?

**2015-02-26 10:38:02****C.A****221**View**0**Score**1**Answer- Tags: newtonian-gravity work potential-energy conventions

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Measuring work done by gravity over non-constant gravitational acceleration

**2013-01-13 04:19:52****jaynp****1165**View**0**Score**2**Answer- Tags: gravity work potential-energy

## 3 comments

## @Deva Pratim Mahanta 2016-01-24 04:19:51

Answer you people have given is right, but it is from mathematical background. Physically, conservative force is a dissipative force. Due to dissipation properties we right as gradient of potential and negative sign comes from its opposite direction of action.

## @pfnuesel 2016-01-24 05:17:51

A conservative force is not a dissipative force.

## @RafaMarce 2015-06-08 21:59:03

If the resultant force acting in a body is give by minus the gradient of potencial you can show that $\frac{dE}{dt} = 0$. Where E is the total energy of particle. So total energy, kinect + potencial is conserved.

In 1-dimensional case:

$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{d(\frac{1}{2}mv^2+V(x))}{dt}=mv\dot{v}+\frac{dV}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt}$

$=v(ma + \frac{dV}{dx})$

## @eepperly16 2015-06-08 21:50:25

We introduce a minus sign to equate the mathematical concept of a potential with the physical concept of potential energy.

Take the gravitational field, for example, which we approximate as being constant near the surface of Earth. The force field can then be described by $\vec{F}(x,y,z)=-mg\hat{e_z}$, taking the up/down direction to be the $z$ direction. The mathematical potential $V$ would be $V(x,y,z) = -mgz+\text{Constant}$ and would satisfy $\nabla V=\vec{F}$. This would correspond with decreasing in height increasing in potential energy which would make us have to redefine mechanical energy as $T-V$ in order to maintain conservation.

Instead of redefining mechanical energy, we introduce the minus sign $\vec{F} = -\nabla V$ which equates the physical notion of potential energy with the mathematical notion of the scalar potential.