I'm trying to untangle some confusion when it comes to understanding work.
Suppose a rocket is moving upwards (in the opposite direction to the force of gravity), with a uniform velocity.
For simplicity, let's assume the mass of the rocket is tiny relative to that of the earth, and define the system as comprising only the rocket.
The combined total work done on the rocket, by engines and gravity, is zero, since there is no change in kinetic energy.
This result makes sense given the definition of the work energy theorem, which states that the work done on a system is equal to the change in kinetic energy of that system.
If we analyze the work done on the rocket by the engines alone, it is equal to the force of the engines (mass * gravity) multiplied by the displacement.
The work done by gravity is the exact negative of the work done by the engines. We can derive this work done by gravity in two ways:
The total work is 0, and therefore the work of gravity must be equal and opposite to the work done by the engines.
Work is defined as the force multiplied by the displacement in the direction of the force, and the force of gravity is $\left[\text{mass}\right]{\times}\left[\text{gravity}\right]$, i.e. $mg$, and the displacement is opposite to the direction of this force, so work done by gravity is $-mg \, {\Delta x}.$
This is where I now get confused:
I've often seen it stated that the negative work done by gravity, in this situation, is precisely what is causing the rocket to gain potential energy. In here, for example:
The gravitational force that did negative work on the ball and decreased its KE has in the process increased the PE of the ball. Thus negative work (W1) has resulted in positive change in PE.
Or, from here:
The fact that these two cancel out (Wnet=Wyou+Wgrav=0) means that the kinetic energy of the object after being lifted is 0. So the work done by gravity went to sucking energy out of the object that you were adding, thereby converting it to gravitational potential energy.
This immediately strikes me as bizarre. I associate an increase in height with an increase in gravitational potential energy (as something goes higher, its potential energy also goes higher). Yet the force of gravity is acting downwards, and a downwards force will reduce the rate at which an object attains height. So if anything, isn't the work done by gravity contributing to a decrease in the rate at which the potential energy is increasing?
I understand that there's a bit of an irony here - the very thing that gives an object potential energy is gravity, and if you increase the gravitational force, you increase the gravitational potential energy. But on the other hand, the force of gravity reduces the rate at which an object attains height, and height is proportional to gravitational potential energy.
I'm very confused here - to me, it makes intuitive sense that, while yes, the gravitational field is what allows gravitational potential energy to exist, it is the force of the engines that is driving the upward motion, and therefore causally implicated in the rise in potential energy of the rocket. So why is it said that the work done by gravity (which is negative!) is what results in the increase in potential energy?
Indeed, from Wikipedia:
The amount of gravitational potential energy possessed by an elevated object is equal to the work done against gravity in lifting it.
While this doesn't logically imply that the work done against gravity (i.e. by the engine) is causally implicated in increasing the potential energy of the object, it surely suggests as much. And I can't help but come to that conclusion: without the engines, the potential energy of the rocket would remain at 0. With the engines, the potential energy increases!
x*y*z
messes up here due to*
being a formatting symbol, such thatx*y*z
renders as xyz. Anyway, to get around this problem, you can use $\mathrm{\TeX}$ markup. Basically you can just put$
marks around whatever you want to be rendered as $\mathrm{\TeX}$; for example,$x$
renders as $x$. Then you can write$x*y*z$
to get $x*y*z$. Alternatively,$\times$
renders as $\times$ and$\cdot$
renders as $\cdot$. $\endgroup$