How Does Binary Star Mass Calculation Using Kepler's Law Work?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion on calculating binary star mass using Kepler's Law, participants explored the correct application of the formula to derive the mass of two equally massive stars. The initial calculations used an incorrect interpretation of the radius, leading to confusion about the mass equations. It was clarified that Kepler's laws assume a negligible mass for orbiting bodies, which is not applicable in this case. The correct approach involves using the semi-major axis and the combined mass of both stars in the formula. Ultimately, the participants reached a consensus on the proper method to calculate the mass of binary stars accurately.
lindz.12
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Consider a pair of binary stars with a separation of 3.60E12 m and an orbital period of 2.55E9s. Assuming the two stars are equally massive, determine the mass of each.

keplar's law...
so I rearranged the formula and set (2pi*r)/T=sqrt((GM)/r), and then I solved for M, which gave me the equation M={[4(pi)^2](r^3)}/(GT^2). Then, I solved for it, and I got 5.3E29kg.


i know the distance given to me was like the diameter, so technically, the radius would be 1.8E12; also, is M the mass of one binary star, considering this question is saying a pair of binary stars...

can someone tell me what i did wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get M={[16(pi)^2](r^3)}/(GT^2) if you use R eq. half the distance. Because, in that case, (2pi*r)/T=sqrt((GM)/2r). Because the force due to gravity is (M^2)G/4(R^2)
 
Last edited:
thank you!
 
Both of these results are wrong.

lindz.12 said:
keplar's law...
so I rearranged the formula and set (2pi*r)/T=sqrt((GM)/r), and then I solved for M, which gave me the equation M={[4(pi)^2](r^3)}/(GT^2). Then, I solved for it, and I got 5.3E29kg.

ak1948 said:
I get M={[16(pi)^2](r^3)}/(GT^2) if you use R eq. half the distance. Because, in that case, (2pi*r)/T=sqrt((GM)/2r). Because the force due to gravity is (M^2)G/4(R^2)

So, what's wrong? lindz.12, your mistake was in using Kepler's laws. These laws are an approximation that implicitly assume that the mass of the orbiting body is very small compared to the mass of the central body. ak1948, your mistake was in using an invalid equation.

Kepler's third law can be extended to cover the case of a pair of masses orbiting one another such that neither mass can be deemed to be negligibly small. In this case,

\tau^2 = \frac{4\pi^2a^3}{G(M_1+M_2)}

where a is the semi-major axis of the orbit of the bodies about each other (i.e., not about their center of mass).Edit:
Solving for the masses,

M_1+M_2 = \frac{4\pi^2a^3}{G\tau^2}
 
Last edited:
DH
I think its the same result: what you call "a" I called "2R". what you call M1+ M2 I call 2M.
 
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...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top