Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Err.. maybe.
However, if we stick to Gauss law, the field strength is determined by number of field lines per unit of surface (cm^2).. but the total flux (energy packed in the well) remains the same (because the big mass is the same in amount, regardless the change in density.
So your analogy is not quite correct, because the field strength at place where the small mass was is still the same.
However it appears that the potential energy of the small mass changed.
It came from the potential energy of the big mass which is now smaller, due to shrinkage.
So, after shrinkage of the big mass, and if we allow the small mass to fall to the lowes possible energy state, yes, we will have to use more energy to remove the small mass out of the well.
So, the first part of the total energy of the small mass is already there (added by collapse of the big mass. The small mass didn't move).
I need only the second part (after "plus ") to remove the small mass from the well.
This is not more than needed before collapse of the big mass.
As I commented in my earlier post (maybe my remark went un-noticed because it was edited later), we should be more clear when answering questions like this. Cryptic and not well-enough explained answers, however correct, will just create a huge confusion among some people (including myself).
|
Point taken.
And it works both ways. I'm not clear on your response above.
Responding to a call for help is part of community and contribution.
Confusion is part of learning. So is asking questions.
I do not live in fear of confusion.
Communication sorts this out.
Cheers