Talk:Effective potential

L not a constant!

In defining the effective force using the effective potential, you have just considered L as a constant! L is actually a function of r. This only makes a difference in the change of sign in this particular case. And while the equation of force is the correct one, since the force (centrifugal) is repulsive, meaning that it has a positive sign, tracing it back to the potential using L's dependence on r should make the centrifugal potential negative. It is required to be negative so that it falls as you go farther, which is gives rise to the Lagrangian points. Tushar Shrotriya (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential and Potential Energy are different things

An effective potential energy "U" would have units of joules in the SI system. An effective potential, which I think should be "V" to distinguish it, would have units of joules per some quantity. For, example, gravitational potential energy is given by

$U_{g}={\frac {Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r}}$

while gravitational potential would be that value divided by the mass of the test mass

$V_{g}={\frac {Gm}{r}}$

Effective potential energy and effective potential should be likewise distinguished. What is this article trying to be about?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Effective potential. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719010918/http://jcp.aip.org/jcpsa6/v117/i4/p1869_s1?isAuthorized=no to http://jcp.aip.org/jcpsa6/v117/i4/p1869_s1?isAuthorized=no

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Bot averted

A sign said "it has been suggested that this page be merged with geopotential," but I came here and saw no such suggestion. I can only infer that the sign was placed down by someone far more skilled at W. editing, but far less knowledgeable in physics, than myself. So, here, take it from a physicist who works in related fields. No, geopotential is not effective potential. It is a later and more specialized rediscovery of an important insight, as happens all the damn time in physics. This is my baby, I will fight to protect it. Anarchic Fox (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

notion more general than advertised

this page gives the reader the impression that the notion of effective potential is limited to orbital motions, but it seems to me that it is way more general (i am a phd student in statistical physics), used in classical statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, cold atoms experiments, ... especially in the introduction, the reference to centrifugal force bothers me, since the effective potentials i am mentioning above don't refer at all to this. since i am far from being an expert, despite my degrees, i await for someone more knowledgeable to correct, me or the article! 151.61.2.8 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)