Orbital Energy of a binary star system

AI Thread Summary
In a binary star system with both stars having mass M and a semimajor axis a, the total energy can be described primarily as gravitational potential energy when the stars are at apocenter, where their velocities are nearly zero. The potential energy for each star is calculated as -Gm^2/2a, leading to a total energy of -Gm^2/a for the system. The discussion raises the question of whether the stars should have the same initial angular momentum and considers the implications of extreme eccentricity on energy contributions. It also explores the concept of simplifying the two-body problem by treating the system as a one-body problem centered at the barycenter. Overall, the analysis focuses on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy in highly eccentric orbits.
Aquafina20
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Say you have a binary star sytem. Both stars have mass M and semimajor axis a. The orbits are extremely eccentric (e is approximately 1). How would you describe the energy of the system?

Homework Equations



SEE BELOW

The Attempt at a Solution



Basically I'm very unconfident about my answer and feel like I'm blanking on basic physics. I imagined the stars both at apocenter at some initial time. With such an eccentric orbit the velocities would be nearly zero here, so the total energy of each stars orbit would be quite nearly all potential energy.

-Gmm/r where r is distance to the barycenter or 2a so the potential energy of each star is -(Gm^2)/2a. So the sum of the PE's would be 2 times this amount and therefore the total energy of the orbit is -(Gm^2)/a

Is this valid?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Essentially zero velocity at apastron would be a very special case.

This might be of use - http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/binary/binary.htm

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/bin_orbits.htm
http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/stars_binvar.html

See this page - http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/visual.html - which also has an applet.

Should the two stars have the same initial angular momentum?

I was trying to think of a way to generalize circular binary orbits - e.g.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html#bo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronuc said:
Essentially zero velocity at apastron would be a very special case.

This is understandable, but would it not be possible to have orbits so eccentric that apocenter velocity would be negligable in contribution to energy? Do not be concerned with practicality or realism. I imagine this being an approximate model for a collision scenerio with both objects starting at rest where the exaggerated eccentricity allows us to throw the objects as nearly directly towards one another as an orbit can allow.
 
If the kinetic energy was negligible, then at apastron, the total energy (neglecting the rotational energies of the stars) would simply be the gravitational potential energy at that distance/separation.

The java applets show that e=1 is extremely eccentric with little overlap of the orbits.

But I was wondering about a more general case. I think one is assuming not only the same mass, but same eccentricity and angular momentum, i.e. the same (or symmetric) orbital parameters for both stars.
 
Astronuc said:
If the kinetic energy was negligible, then at apastron, the total energy (neglecting the rotational energies of the stars) would simply be the gravitational potential energy at that distance/separation.

Would -GM^2/2a be an acceptable description of total energy or am i misinterpreting center of mass? Could you not say the two masses are m/2 and 2m and turn it into a one body with one oject stationary at the barycenter and the other following the same orbit in the two body?

But I was wondering about a more general case. I think one is assuming not only the same mass, but same eccentricity and angular momentum, i.e. the same (or symmetric) orbital parameters for both stars.

Well, wouldn't that be implicit in having a two body problem where m1=m2=m?
 
Well, wouldn't that be implicit in having a two body problem where m1=m2=m?
No - why would it? In addition to m1 = m2, one would need m1v1r1 = m2v2r2, no? And the two mass would have to be in phase in their orbits.

Orbital mechanics in not my specialty, and it's been a long time since I've sat down and worked through such material.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top