Is the energy conserved FOR EACH BODY in a two-body central force problem?

AI Thread Summary
In a two-body gravitational problem, the total energy of the system is conserved, but it is not meaningful to attribute separate energy conservation to each body due to the nature of potential energy, which is an interaction between the two. While individual angular momentum is conserved for each body about the center of mass, the kinetic energy of each body can vary significantly depending on their positions relative to each other. For instance, in a Sun-comet system, the comet's kinetic energy fluctuates, but the overall energy of the system remains constant. The concept of energy conservation is better understood when considering the system as a whole rather than partitioning it between the two bodies. Thus, the energy of one body cannot be considered conserved independently.
Kamikaze_951
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I would like to know if the energy of each body of a two body gravitationnal problem is separately conserved. I know that the individual angular momentum are separately conserved and that the TOTAL energy of the two bodies is conserved. However, I don't know if there could be energy transfer between the two bodies or if it's forbidden by symmetry considerations.

In my mechanics textbook, the two-body central force problem is only treated as a one-dimensional problem of the motion of a reduced mass in an effective potential, where only the energy of a reduced mass orbiting around the center of mass is considered. This confuses me when I try to think of the energy of ONE of the two bodies. Is the energy of ONE of the two bodies conserved? Is there a way to see this?

Thank you a lot for considering my request.

Kami
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The angular momentum about any point of the two body system is conserved. For each body separately the angular momentum about the centre of mass is conserved, but not, I think, about other points.

Regarding energy, I don't think it makes sense to partition it into body A's and body B's. This is because the potential energy belongs to the system as a whole.
 
Philip is correct. As an example, think of a system of two point particles which only interact via gravity. The only relevant energies here are kinetic and potential. If we pick some given reference frame, then each body has some kinetic energy (which could be zero) but the potential energy is just the gravitational potential energy GMm/r. Which body does this potential energy belong to? The energy only exists as an interaction between the two bodies.

Imagine we had one particle very massive (and thus roughly stationary), and the other very light and in a highly elliptical orbit--let's call this a Sun-comet system. When the comet is very close to the Sun, it's moving very fast and thus has high kinetic energy, but when the comet is far from the Sun, it moves much slower. The comet's kinetic energy is not conserved. But the potential energy has changed, and thus the system's total energy is conserved. But the potential energy does not necessarily "belong" to the comet, so it doesn't make sense to talk about the comet's total energy.

When we study central force motion, we do what you said: move to the center of mass frame and consider the motion of a single particle (with a mass equal to the reduced mass) inside a time-independent potential field. The problem has been changed: now there is only a field and a particle. So we can just say that all the energy belongs to the particle. But if we go back to the two-particle system, it's ambiguous which particle the energy belongs to.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top