B 'A Brief History of Time' question on gravity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of gravitational force laws on planetary orbits as presented in Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time.' It clarifies that for stable orbits, gravitational force must decrease with distance according to the inverse square law (1/r^2), which balances centrifugal force. If gravity were to decrease faster (like 1/r^4 or 1/r^5), the Earth could potentially spiral into the Sun due to insufficient centrifugal force, but this scenario is nuanced by conservation laws. The conversation also touches on the complexity of orbits under different force laws, noting that many conditions do not yield simple, closed orbits. Overall, the balance between gravitational and centrifugal forces is critical for maintaining stable planetary orbits.
Nitram
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I'm reading through Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' and came across this sentence in the second chapter:

" If the law were that the gravitational attraction of a star went down faster or increased more rapidly with distance, the orbits of the planets would not be elliptical, they would either spiral into the sun or escape from the sun ."

I think the choice of wording is poor but I can see that if gravity increased with distance and was proportional to say, ##r^2## or ##r^3## then the distant stars would cause the Earth to escape from its current orbit around the Sun. However, if gravity was proportional to ##r^{-4}## or ##r^{-5}## why would the Earth spiral into the Sun? The Earth would experience a smaller gravitational force from the Sun. Would it be because there are effectively no forces from the distant stars and these are the forces that give the Earth its orbital velocity around the Sun? So the Earth's orbital velocity would gradually decrease until it 'fell' into the Sun.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nitram said:
Would it be because there are effectively no forces from the distant stars and these are the forces that give the Earth its orbital velocity around the Sun? So the Earth's orbital velocity would gradually decrease until it 'fell' into the Sun.
No, what’s going on has nothing to do with the distant stars. Even if the force were very weak, we could still drop an object straight into the sun if it weren’t also moving sideways. One way of thinking about it: a stable orbit requires centrifugal force to exactly balance the gravitational force. Too little centrifugal force and the object falls into the sun; too much and it escapes. When you work through the math (that’s the Bertrand’s Theorem that @PeroK linked) it turns out that only a ##1/r^2## force allows that balance.

I have appealed to “centrifugal force” here, but be aware that it’s a somewhat dubious notion. It’s OK for this handwaving answer, but it’s not a substitute for doing the math properly in an inertial frame)
 
Nugatory said:
No, what’s going on has nothing to do with the distant stars. Even if the force were very weak, we could still drop an object straight into the sun if it weren’t also moving sideways. One way of thinking about it: a stable orbit requires centrifugal force to exactly balance the gravitational force. Too little centrifugal force and the object falls into the sun; too much and it escapes. When you work through the math (that’s the Bertrand’s Theorem that @PeroK linked) it turns out that only a ##1/r^2## force allows that balance.

I have appealed to “centrifugal force” here, but be aware that it’s a somewhat dubious notion. It’s OK for this handwaving answer, but it’s not a substitute for doing the math properly in an inertial frame)
"Spiral into the sun seems" seems extreme. Given conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum, there is a range of orbital radii which are permissible. For a wide range of force laws and initial conditions, you can't spiral in and you can't escape.

For most of these force laws and most initial conditions you will not have simple closed orbits that arrive back at their starting point. Whether to call these orbits "stable" is a different question. I'd call them stable but not closed.
 
jbriggs444 said:
For a wide range of force laws and initial conditions, you can't spiral in and you can't escape.
gah - yes, I did a brain slide from no stable (against perturbation) and closed orbits into no orbits.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
14K
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Back
Top