3

In this website, it was written that

If a force acting on an object is a function of position only, it is said to be a conservative force.

Why is this so? According to wikipedia, a force is conservative if it meets any of the following conditions:

  1. $\nabla \times \vec{F}=0$
  2. $\vec{F} = -\nabla V(\vec{r})$
  3. $W = \oint \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{s} = 0$

How can one derive that a force that only depends on position is conservative from these three conditions?

TaeNyFan
  • 4,376

2 Answers2

7

That statement simply isn't true. It's easy to construct an example of a non-conservative force which depends only on position, e.g.

$$\mathbf F(x,y) = \pmatrix{-y\\x}$$

In one dimension, any force which depends only on position is automatically conservative, but for higher dimensions this is not true. One can see why by trying to construct a potential energy function explicitly.


Consider a 2D system subject to a force $$\mathbf F = \pmatrix{-x\\-y}$$ We're looking for some $U(x,y)$ such that $\mathbf F = -\nabla U$, i.e. $$\pmatrix{-x\\-y} = \pmatrix{-\frac{\partial U}{\partial x} \\ -\frac{\partial U}{\partial y}}$$ From the first component, we have that $\frac{\partial U}{\partial x} = x$; taking the antiderivative, it follows that $U(x,y) = \frac{1}{2}x^2 + C(y)$ where $C$ is an arbitrary function which may depend on $y$ but not $x$.

From the next component, we have that $$\frac{\partial U}{\partial y} = C'(y) = y$$ which implies that $C(y) = \frac{1}{2}y^2 + C_0$ where $C_0$ is a constant. Therefore, any potential energy function $U(x,y)= \frac{1}{2}x^2 + \frac{1}{2}y^2 + C$ produces the given force, and we can say that $\mathbf F$ is conservative.


The reason that this doesn't always work is that, while we can always find an antiderivative for the first component, we may run into inconsistencies in the others. The non-conservative force I wrote first is an example; if we try to apply the same procedure to that one, the first component will give us that $U(x,y) = xy + C(y)$, but the second will give us that $x + C'(y) = -x \implies C'(y)=-2x$. But since $C(y)$ cannot depend on $x$, this is inconsistent. There is no $U(x,y)$ such that $-\nabla U = \pmatrix{-y \\ x}$, and so the force is not conservative.

Albatross
  • 72,909
2

I'm sure that is because in that website they are only considering one dimensional forces, so that if $\vec{F}=F(x)\hat{x}$ then $\nabla\times\vec{F}=0$. In general that is not true, for example the magnetic field created by stationary currents only depends on position, but it is not conservative!

Urb
  • 2,724