40

I would like to know where gravity gets its energy to attract physical bodies?

I know that the law of conservation states that total energy of an isolated system cannot change. So gravity has to be getting its energy from somewhere, or else things like hydropower plants wouldn't be able to turn the power of the falling water into a spinning rotor.

Just to be clear, Lets create an example:

Lets say we have two objects with equal mass close to each other. So gravity does its job and it pulls each other closer, this gets turned into kinetic energy. This is where I'm lost. According to the law of conservation energy can't be created or destroyed and the kinetic energy comes from the gravitational pull so where does the gravitational pull gets its energy.

If that energy isn't being recycled from some where else then that means you have just created energy, therefore breaking the law of conservation.

Caesar
  • 511
  • They get it from nowhere, they already HAVE it. It is a "default" energy of the universe if you wish. Overall energy of the universe is constant. – Asphir Dom Aug 25 '13 at 13:52
  • 1
    Gravity pull has energy by default, but this energy is not infinite as you think. Gravitational pull has finite energy capacity even across infinite distances. You did not create NEW energy because - before moving objects had energy in the form of "passive" potential energy of gravitational field. You should investigate closely the conception of POTENTIAL energy. – Asphir Dom Aug 25 '13 at 14:09
  • @AsphirDom Sorry, but I'm not seeing the cycle of energy here. I'm not seeing where the Gravitational potential get it is energy. – Caesar Aug 25 '13 at 14:45
  • @Asphir-Dom Total energy may be constant. But Energy can be converted form one type to another. I myself dont understand how rest energy is converted to potential gravitational energy. – eJunior Aug 25 '13 at 15:28
  • 2
    I know this question was asked a year ago, just wanted to propose 1 thing. On the minutephysics video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM630Z8lho8 it states that a common science misconception is that mass affects gravity, when it is actually energy and momentum. I think it is the energy of momentum of the Earth around the sun creating our gravitational field that "adds" energy. Some people answered that the energy of a ball drop on earth came from the energy taken to lift it. What if you dug a deep hole and dropped a ball in? ... – Gᴇᴏᴍᴇᴛᴇʀ Sep 06 '14 at 22:10
  • ... where did that energy come from? If the hole was 5 km deep all the energy couldn't have come from the act of dropping the ball. The energy came from the Earth perhaps. – Gᴇᴏᴍᴇᴛᴇʀ Sep 06 '14 at 22:12
  • @Zack I found this video that explains it very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTVIMOix3I&feature=youtu.be – Caesar Sep 07 '14 at 08:33
  • That video explains gravity, but that's different than you're question. Also, did you agree/disagree with my comments? Do you still think udiboy1209's answer is correct? – Gᴇᴏᴍᴇᴛᴇʀ Sep 07 '14 at 18:37
  • @Zack I'm not export enough to be able to tell if the answer is correct, but I can see the analogy he is trying to make and i have no reason to think it is wrong – Caesar Sep 07 '14 at 19:07
  • @Gᴇᴏᴍᴇᴛᴇʀ You've got a valid point. I'm sorry but the accepted answer still isn't satisfactory. Essentially what he's saying is that the energy needed to be 'spent' in order to then be converted into gravity. Why is the rate of gravity then seemingly 'constant' (leaving aside air resistance)? The 'big bang', i.e. the collapse of the pre-solar nebular (cloud of gas and dust) was caused due to gravitational forces. Where did that gravity come from? Who was lifting balls and dropping them above the gas giant then? – strangetimes Nov 03 '15 at 00:50
  • @TheVoid Um what recent changes? –  Feb 20 '16 at 21:00
  • @ChrisWhite: Probably he is thinking about gravitational waves. ::Facepalm::! –  Feb 21 '16 at 10:24
  • @user36790 : or he was waiting for an answer with references to the BB and the dark energy ( see anna_v answer ) –  Feb 22 '16 at 13:38
  • @igael: yes, you may be right, but he didn't clear things in any way. –  Feb 22 '16 at 13:55
  • @user36790 : for me, it is a complete and consistent answer : at start, the potential was null and then inflation and expansion produced the basic g. potential energy. Indeed, there isn't any relation to GW, it's just newtonian mechanics + expansion –  Feb 22 '16 at 14:07
  • @igael: he means the user who gave the bounty and not the answerer. –  Feb 22 '16 at 14:14
  • @user36790 : I was answering to the "may be right". Sorry, ok :) –  Feb 22 '16 at 14:18
  • Maybe I'm being a little pedantic here, but gravity is, by definition and in the relativistic view, NOT energy. Otherwise, the null energy condition (for instance) could not exist, as the range of gravitational effects is infinite, however imperceptible some of those effects might become. – Edouard Jun 11 '21 at 19:06
  • None of these "answers" are correct. The correct "academic" answer is that every particle of matter in the Universe has an energy surplus (potential energy) with every other particle of matter in the Universe. That energy comes from the energy that brought the matter into existence. The other answers only explain matter that already exists on the Earth. Thus the simplistic "well, you needed energy to get it up there in the first place" comments. It's worth noting that we really don't have a good understanding of gravity still. Although we know a lot about it's behavior. – Paul Easter Aug 09 '21 at 03:49
  • For linguistic reasons having to do with the verbiage in the "energy conditions" that were formulated by Hawking & Penrose, gravity is not, technically, describable either as having energy or as being energy, although a description of it as "negative energy" is often used in pop. sci., as an aid to people as lacking in mathematical acuity as myself. – Edouard Mar 13 '22 at 18:08

8 Answers8

58

According to the conservation of energy, we cannot create or destroy energy, we can only transform it from one form to the other.

So this justifies that gravity doesn't have an infinite source of energy which never runs out! So it must be getting this energy from somewhere else, right?

Let's take the example of a ball dropped from some height. Gravity of the earth pulls it downward, doing work on the ball and giving it kinetic energy. The question you ask is where did it get this energy from?
Go back a step and think about how this ball ended up at such a height? You lifted it up with your arms, and put it on that height. Your arms did work against gravity, spent some energy to put that ball on that height. Where did that spent energy go? This was given to gravity!

When you do work against gravity, you store energy in the gravitational field as gravitational potential energy, which then gravity uses to do work on that object.

In case of hydro power-plants, the sun is giving energy to the water at sea level, to evaporate and rise(in effect doing work against gravity), which ultimately ends up in dams at a higher height, and then falls converting that initial solar energy to electricity!

udiboy1209
  • 4,023
  • 1
    Prefect answer, this is EXACTLY what I was looking for. – Caesar Aug 25 '13 at 15:38
  • 4
    The problem is that gravity has only a potential energy and it depends on its position in relation to other objects. So its 'energy' varies according to reference points, i.e. its not absolute. If you throw a ball with enough speed it will be able to get off Earth gravitational field, and then what happens to its 'stored energy'? The ball can be pulled by some other planet with energy completely different than previously 'stored'. – eJunior Aug 25 '13 at 15:39
  • @eJunior Regarding where the 'stored' energy is going, It is staying there in earth's gravitational field as potential energy. If earth were to every pull back on that object, this is where its kinetic energy will come from. Regarding some other planet pulling it, note that there is currently potential energy stored in the object(when it is on earth), in the other planet's gravitational field. So yes my analogy still works there. – udiboy1209 Aug 25 '13 at 15:47
  • 1
    Don't stress on the simplicity of this analogy a lot. It is pretty dumbed down to explain the OP's question simply. There are a lot of other complications and things to consider, like what would happen if the planet blew up? – udiboy1209 Aug 25 '13 at 15:49
  • 1
    I liked your way of explanation.. You made simple thing even more simple.. – Earth is a Spoon Mar 15 '14 at 12:47
  • I commented above (of being unimpressed), and then came across this: https://www.quora.com/Where-does-gravity-originate

    Perhaps it's time to appreciate our Creator and His wonders.

     – strangetimes Nov 03 '15 at 01:04
  • I'm not a physicist, and so may very well be ignorant in my answer. The "energy" that manifests as gravity or gravitational force comes from the virtue of the 'objects' having mass, or matter. Therefore, their gravitational potential or capacity to assert gravitational force is also related to their mass , which is just another form of energy, albeit 'contained' (thereby being of kind potential) in the form of matter. (Newtonian Gravitation Law, Einstein's mass and energy equation). – coolharsh55 Jun 15 '16 at 20:20
  • ^continued from above; By the law of conservation of energy, all energy is constant in the universe, but may change forms. Therefore, the gravity of each body either comes from assimilation of matter (as in stars) or as a byproduct of other gravitational forces acting upon them. For example, in the early soup of matter and energy, stars formed due to simple matter (hydrogen) combining to form helium and formed bodies of matter grouped together. Therefore, each atom has gravitational potential and exerts force, albeit a very small one. So energy is present as matter here -> hydrogen. – coolharsh55 Jun 15 '16 at 20:22
  • ^ continued from above; By their combination, stars have a combined mass and exert the combined gravitational force as a single body. The grouping of stars into galaxies is due to their gravitational potential. This is borne out of the inherent nature of matter being energy. So as long as the star is burning, it will continue to exert gravitational force. The mass of the star is lost as energy, and it's gravitational potential reduces. The same principle applies to planets borne out of the star, and are revolving due to the star. – coolharsh55 Jun 15 '16 at 20:26
  • ^ continued from above; There is no such thing as a stable two-body system - if they are galaxies, they will move toward each other. If they are stars, they will run out sooner or later. If they are planets, they cannot survive without stars (they will always move to a gravitational larger object). Therefore, everything in the universe seems affected by gravity - even light (see black holes). Therefore, all energies are inherently cohesive with matter. – coolharsh55 Jun 15 '16 at 20:28
  • ^ continued from above; There come two approaches to my mind - that of gravitons - that all matter emits gravitons, and their interactions cause the gravitational field/potential. And another being that of the string theory (not sure about this), or this may be something different - that the inherent gravitational field put up by the objects creates the fabric of the universe. Objects that have a larger concentration of mass create a denser fabric. All matter can only move and interact with other gravitational fields. In the end, all energy is still equivalently conserved. – coolharsh55 Jun 15 '16 at 20:30
  • 1
    but let's say 2 giant asteroids in space are attracetd by gravity, where does that energy come from? – MartianCactus Feb 06 '17 at 18:12
  • 2
    @MartianCactus it can get extremely confusing to look at such specific cases. This is why in physics we deal with transfer of energy, and don't bother figuring out the source of it. If you went looking for the source, you would reach the big bang. This helps us to define our own levels for energy, like I can say that if the two asteroids are infinitely far apart they will have no gravitational potential energy (which then becomes my reference point). After that we can easily calculate the change in potential energy of the asteroids to the point when they are lets say 100KM apart. – udiboy1209 Feb 23 '17 at 07:57
  • 1
    ^ cont. This change is what manifests as the kinetic energy or speed of the asteroids hence this change is what will affect the dynamics of our system. – udiboy1209 Feb 23 '17 at 07:58
  • This is a great answer in some respects i have been pondering this and from this answer my question comes about when you're in space with little to no energy E.G an astroid forms from Gravity at a position and it's not moving it grows big enough to have the gravity of a nearby planet effect it and starts moving towards it but where did that energy come from there was nothing bus mass put into it by it pulling small tiny object into its self with very little engery in them moving they have very little left to move the asteroid once it's large enough so how does the asteroid accelerate? – Martin Barker Mar 07 '18 at 16:02
  • This is such a flawed answer. What if you would dematerialize the apple on the ground, transforming it into energy, then transport the energy to a higher level, and rematerialize the apple. – Alpha_Pi Nov 27 '18 at 13:14
  • @Alpha_Pi energy also interacts with gravitational fields, and has been seen in Gravitational Lensing where light is bent by strong gravity. At this point you are stretching the analogy too far into a fictional concept, and the gravitational potential can be figured out once you define the fictional system properly. – udiboy1209 Dec 08 '18 at 11:03
  • @MartinBarker start with the concept that gravity is a conservative field. Potential energy of a conservative field only depends on final point and not the path taken. So if you are thinking of formation of an asteroid, you can trace the path of every atom in the asteroid to get it from the start of time to where it is in the asteroid, the potential energy would be the same because it only depends on the final destination. So if half the asteroid came directly from one planet whereas the other half circled around the sun, they will have the same potential energy when they stick together. – udiboy1209 Dec 08 '18 at 11:11
  • What about objects in a stable orbit though, such as moons? They continue to orbit indefinitely, with a constant change in velocity (work). If they are stable then the amount of energy required to keep them in that orbit is unlimited. – user Jun 09 '22 at 08:07
  • @user: In the case of a circular orbit, the gravitational force is always perpendicular to the direction of motion, hence no work is done. For an elliptical orbit, the force and direction of motion are not always perpendicular, so work is done, and energy is constantly being transformed between kinetic energy and potential energy as the body is orbiting. – James Feb 22 '23 at 18:25
11

Lets make one thing clear. The phrase "gravity gets its energy" is technically not accurate as "gravity" is a type of interaction or force that exist between any two bodies having mass.

You may be wondering why objects move in gravity, where do they get energy from? If I have understood essence of your question.

Well, every object has its own gravitational field, which has infinite range. To make things simpler to understand, lets imagine a region of space where there are only two bodies. These bodies are in gravitational field of each other and hence possess some energy by the virtue of their relative position. We call it potential energy, as the form of energy they possess has a potential to do some work.

Both these bodies will move towards each other due to gravity and their gravitational potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy. Hence, the energy that objects get while moving in gravitational field gets converted at the expense of their gravitational potential energy.

orionphy
  • 1,266
  • What I'm having hard time understating is hence possess some energy by the virtue of their relative position, where does this play in the law of conservation? – Caesar Aug 25 '13 at 13:35
  • Ok, got your point. Let me try a different approach. I am assuming that you understand what is space-time. Space-time is three dimensional and difficult to image, but for sake of understanding our problem, we can assume it as two dimensional. So, in this regard, every object in such space-time will modify and create a region of depression. Now, if you specify a number for every point in the region around the object (which we will call gravitational potential) then this number varies as you move away or near the object. – orionphy Aug 25 '13 at 13:48
  • When you place another object in this region, its gravitational potential will be different at different distance from the first object. Hence, by virtue of the position of the second object relative to the first object, it will have different energy. – orionphy Aug 25 '13 at 13:48
  • I understand that gravity causes a bend in space, this is why the earth spins around the sun. Like a marble spinning around the inside a hole. But I still don't get where the energy comes from. Please read my edited post. – Caesar Aug 25 '13 at 14:18
  • As per my understanding, "Big bang" happened and our universe (known) came into existence. Everything in the beginning was in form for energy, i.e. photons. At certain point of time energy got converted to matter and gravity came into existence. When gravity came to existence the gravitational energy or potential came into existence, since then it is converting to other forms and vice versa. – orionphy Aug 25 '13 at 14:23
  • I don't know from where does the energy of explosion (Big bang) came. – orionphy Aug 25 '13 at 14:24
  • I still feel like there is something out of the equation that I'm missing. Because this gravitational energy either has a finite amount of energy (Which means that it could run out, or it needs a way to replenish it self) or it is infinite. – Caesar Aug 25 '13 at 14:30
  • @orion, a note, you don't need to convert energy to mass to experience gravity, objects with energy experience gravity too. Light, for example. – udiboy1209 Aug 25 '13 at 14:59
  • @udiboy. Are you saying that gravity existed during the era of energy, that is, when universe was just filled with photons? – orionphy Aug 25 '13 at 15:51
  • era of energy? not sure what you mean by that. Anyway, gravity does affect photons(Google search "gravitational lensing"), so there should technically exist gravitational attraction between two photons too, though it will be very miniscule. – udiboy1209 Aug 25 '13 at 15:55
  • By era of energy I meant, the initial time of universe when everything was energy. Matter was not formed at this time. – orionphy Aug 25 '13 at 15:59
  • You mean before the big bang? You should ask this as another question, for a more detailed answer. – udiboy1209 Aug 25 '13 at 16:41
7

Lets say we have two objects with equal mass close to each other. So gravity does its job and it pulls each other closer, this gets turned into kinetic energy. This is where I'm lost. According to the law of conservation energy can't be created or destroyed and the kinetic energy comes from the gravitational pull so where does the gravitational pull gets its energy.

In Newtonian gravity there exists a potential energy m1m2/r between two bodies , that is where the energy comes from: the fact that the masses were at a distance r gave them gravitational potential energy which is transformed to the kinetic in your example.

So problem number one is reduced to problem number two "how did these two masses get at a distance r"? . And in order to simplify the problem, let us think of the moon and the earth. Where did the moon get its kinetic and potential energy? We are then led to a cosmological model.

The current answer is that the energy was provided at the beginning of time in the Big Bang model of the universe. This model is a General Relativity model, which has a lot of caveats as far as energy conservation goes, ( see the answer by Motl here) but it is true that for flat spaces, where Special Relativity holds, energy conservation holds as usual .

Thus the answer is , after the cataclysmic events of the beginning of time, when the observable universe appeared, it had a dowry of energy in the forms we study in the lab which follows the usual conservation law.

anna v
  • 233,453
  • I'm slightly confused by this distance r gave them gravitational potential energy how does a measurement r provide energy? – Martin Barker Mar 07 '18 at 16:10
  • @MartinBarker It is not the measurement that creates $r$ . $r$ exists and we measure it. For example we measure the distance r of the moon to the earth, and we fit the orbit using newtonian gravitation. This validates the model which has potential energy between two masses of distance $r$ between them as stated above. To bring a satellite at a distanc $r$ we have to give it kinetic energy, which is transformed to potential energy at the orbit . That is the succesful newtonian gravitation theory – anna v Mar 07 '18 at 17:38
  • but you have done it in that answers you say distance r which is a measurement of distance not of energy or potential energy, against the first line r exists and we measure it this is what is confusing me. are these 2 different things by the same notation of r? – Martin Barker Mar 07 '18 at 17:59
  • @MartinBarker the distance between two objects exists whether we measure it or not. We call it $r$ to describe it mathematically. Potential gravitational energy between masses m_1 and m_2 is given by the V=m_1m_2/r formula, as a functional form. – anna v Mar 07 '18 at 18:03
  • the distance between two objects exists whether we measure it or not. yeah I know and whether we measure it or not it's still a measurement. so if I understand this correctly V( ) is the formula for energy from the big bang left in the distance r between the 2 objects? if so how does gravity a force of the mass get the energy that's not already within the 2 masses?Sorry if this is annoying you, I am trying to understand and might be understanding your explanations wrong but as I read them these are the questions coming to mind. – Martin Barker Mar 07 '18 at 18:39
  • @MartinBarker have a look at the articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Modern_form and the gravitational field . The energy exists in the positions, not in the masses which for classical gravitation are invariant. The moon has potential energy , which would be released if it fell on the earth, and kinetic energy that was there when it was caught by the attractive field of the earth. The gravitational attractive force is balanced by the centriugal of the orbit. I think you should study gravitation and classical mechanics from scratch – anna v Mar 07 '18 at 18:50
  • https://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/physics/exam-prep/oscillations-gravitation/newtons-law-of-gravity/ – anna v Mar 07 '18 at 18:51
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Martin Barker Mar 07 '18 at 19:01
  • @MartinBarker too late for me, it is my bedtime – anna v Mar 07 '18 at 19:22
3

Falling water in hydropower plant gets its energy from the Sun: the sunrays heat the ocean water, it evaporates into atmosphere, then when the pressure drops or the temperature falls, the water drops on the Earth surface as rain. This rain water accumulates into rivers which are used by the hydropower plants.

Anixx
  • 11,159
2

Main part of question -

"Lets say we have two objects with equal mass close to each other. So gravity does its job and it pulls each other closer..."

Answer -

Let us reverse this process. Suppose the two objects are next to each other, then take them apart. You have to spend energy to do that against gravity. Take the objects 5 miles away. Now with your logic, you can say that energy that you spent in moving the object, is lost. But it is not.

Leave the objects on their own and they will come closer again, and will gain KE and they will gain exactly same amount of KE as the amount you spent in separating them. What it tells is that in either case, the energy is not lost, or created, it is converted from one form to another.

When two objects come closer, they gain KE by borrowing it from potential energy of the system. As the KE increases, the potential energy of the system of two objects decreases (actually it increases with negative sign). When you take them apart, you return this potential energy to system.

As a crude example, you can consider gravity as a spring.

In case of gravity, space and the two objects, all three act together to create that attraction. So, gravity borrows the energy from potential energy of the system of two objects.

kpv
  • 4,509
-2

The problem here is that on think that gravity between two masses is a force originating from the masses themselves. Even Newton could not accept that idea. He preferred not to make any theory of how that force originated. Lesage suggested that the force was not an attraction between masses but a pushing force coming from outside, forcing the two masses to get closer. The bigger the masses, the more force they receive because one is shielding the force coming from behind it. Newton was not satisfy with that because no one was able to demonstrate it. If the force originate from the matter in the masses, then it might be possible to block some of that force and the 'attraction' will be smaller. A laser beam can block some of the force but the result is the opposite. The 2 masses get closer as if the attraction force is getting stronger. The best explanation of these results is that there is a force coming from every direction of space and that the light ray blocked some of that force; the result is that the 2 masses are pushed toward one another. If only one mass is used, the moving mass will always be pushed toward the light beam, even if the light is enclosed in a steel box. Then one does not have to find where the energy of gravity comes from because the force is coming from all direction of space and is probably caused by all what is moving through space at the speed of light.

louis rancourt
  • 25
  • Newton himself came up with conclusion that gravity is a feature of matter itself. So, your answer is largely irrelevant, IMO. – OmG Mar 24 '19 at 16:52
-2

As per Newtonts law each thing have energy to attract another thing, beacause in every thing there is potential energy. Due to friction that potential enrgy can convert in another form. for eg. our sirt colour get more dirty, because of friction between neck and colour, in anciant period for generating th fire people used to rubs to white stones on each other. inside of earth there is so much potential energy,and because of heat or pressure or because of any another reason friction come to exists and due to friction earths potential energy converts in gravity (earth get more energy of attraction than another things which are exists on earh)

Jeevan Meher
  • 5
  • 1
-2

The universe is composed of over $90$% dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy comprises about $70$% of this. So far, dark matter and energy remain undetectable and until there are the mechanism that produces gravity, will probably remain a puzzle. If you want to know more in detail you will need to research quantum mechanics and string theory.

Hunter
  • 5,196
mike mantle
  • 21