A doubt from the book Galactic Dynamics from Binney and Tremaine

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter krishna mohan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Doubt Dynamics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equations presented in Chapter 3 of the second edition of "Galactic Dynamics" by Binney and Tremaine, specifically equations 3.8 and 3.9. The participant questions the validity of the notation used in these equations, particularly regarding the relationship between the radial coordinate \( r \) and the angular coordinate \( \phi \). It is concluded that while the notation may appear sloppy, it accurately reflects the dependency of \( r \) and \( \phi \) once the orbit is defined by initial conditions, thus confirming the correctness of the equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics and orbital dynamics
  • Familiarity with the concepts of central force motion
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly the chain rule
  • Experience with mathematical notation in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the chain rule in calculus to clarify variable dependencies
  • Review central force motion and its implications on orbital mechanics
  • Examine notation conventions in physics literature for clarity
  • Explore further examples of related functions in dynamical systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in astrophysics, physicists studying orbital mechanics, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the mathematical foundations of dynamical systems.

krishna mohan
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Hi...

I was reading through the second edition of the book Galactic Dynamics from Binney and Tremaine.

Chapter 3 :eqns 3.8 and 3.9.

3.8 says

r^2 \frac{d \phi}{dt}=L=constant.

Then 3.9 writes

\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{L}{r^2}\frac{d}{d\phi}

But is this correct? For example, if I act this on r, the radial coordinate, I get

\frac{dr}{dt}=0

For a general orbit in a central force, r is not a constant.
So is there a mistake in the book, or am I missing something?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Yes, it's correct, but the notation is a little sloppy.

Let

r \left ( t \right) = \tilde{r} \left( \phi \left ( t \right) \right).

These are really different functions (of different vraiables) , but this type of notational abuse, denoting different, but related functions by the same letter, is very common in physics.

Using the chain rule, what is dr/dt? Using d/dt from the book, what is dr/dt?
 
Yes..I understand the mistake I am making...

I was assuming r and \phi are independent variables...

But once an orbit is determined by the initial conditions, they are no longer independent...

Is that correct?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
792