Center of mass and REduced mass

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the mathematical relationship between center of mass (C.M.) and reduced mass (μ) in multi-body systems. The reduced mass is defined as μ = m1m2 / (m1 + m2) for two masses, and an extension for multiple masses is proposed as 1/μ = Σ(1/m_n). The center of mass is established as a position rather than a mass, and the discussion highlights the simplifications in the two-body problem when using the center of mass coordinate system. Additionally, a generalized approach to reduced mass in N-particle systems is introduced, incorporating a diagonal mass matrix and energy equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics principles, particularly in multi-body systems.
  • Familiarity with mathematical concepts such as summation and matrix operations.
  • Knowledge of energy equations in conservative systems.
  • Basic grasp of vector calculus and inner products.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the center of mass formula: m_{cm} = Σ(x_n m_n) / Σ(m_n).
  • Explore the application of reduced mass in two-body problems using μ = m1m2 / (m1 + m2).
  • Learn about the energy equations in N-particle systems, focusing on the role of the diagonal mass matrix.
  • Investigate the implications of using center of mass coordinates in simplifying complex mechanical systems.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mechanical engineers, and students studying classical mechanics, particularly those interested in multi-body dynamics and energy conservation principles.

PeteGt
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
I forget how these two relate both conceptually and mathematically...any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\mu = \frac{m_1m_2}{m_1 + m_2}

m_{cm} = \frac{\sum x_n m_n}{\sum m_n}

cookiemonster
 
So what about more than one mass? So would the reduced mass formula really be 1/u=1/m1+1/m2+1/m3+...
 
Honestly, I've never seen it for more than two masses, but I suppose the most logical extension would be

\frac{1}{\mu} = \sum \frac{1}{m_n}

That being said, the above expression may have absolutely no physical meaning. I don't know.

Anyway, for the uses of the center of mass and reduced mass together is a 2-body problem. The math simplifies in the center of mass coordinate system and when you use the center of mass coordinate system, the math involved makes it convenient to define reduced mass as such.

cookiemonster

Edit: I say "the most logical extension" because reduced mass is also defined as

\frac{1}{\mu} = \frac{1}{m_1} + \frac{1}{m_2}

You can use a bit of algebra to demonstrate that this equation is simply a rearrangement of the first one I gave.

Edit2: Which I would have known you already knew had I read your post more carefully...
 
Last edited:
I think the reduced-mass concept should be generalized to a matrix rather than to a scalar. If we consider a N-particle system where the particle positions x(i) are measured relative to the C.M., we have, for a conservative system, that the energy equation (f.ex.) may be written as:
1/2*MV^(2)+1/2*(v^(T)*Q*v)+U=const.
Here, M is the system's total mass, V is the speed of C.M, U is the potential energy; whereas v is the N-vector of particle velocities, v^(T)=(v(1),..,v(N))
(T is for transpose)
(v(i)=dx(i)/dt)).
Q is the N*N diagonal mass matrix, Q(j,j)=m(j), where m(j) is the mass of the j-th particle.
(The resulting product of velocities, f.ex. v(j)^(2) is the dot product if v(j) is a vector.)

We have, by definition of particle positions relative to C.M, m(i)*x(i)=0, where summing over i=1,..N is implied.
Hence, we may eliminate a particle (the N'th, f.ex.), from our system, and
we represent the other particles by their distances x(i,N) (i=1,..N-1):
x(i)=x(N)+x(i,N), i=1,..N-1, v(i,N)=dx(i,N)/dt, vrel^(T)=(v(1,N),...v(N-1,N))

The energy equation may now be rewritten as:
1/2*MV^(2)+1/2*(vrel^(T)*R*vrel)+U=const.

Here, R is the (N-1)*(N-1) reduced mass matrix with respect to particle N:

R(j,j)=r(j,j)=m(j)(M-m(j))/M
R(i,j)=R(j,i)=-r(i,j), r(i,j)=m(i)*m(j)/M (i not equal to j)

We see that r(i,j) is less than both m(i) and m(j).
Again, products of velocities should be regarded as inner products if the velocities v(i,N) are vectors.
 
cookiemonster said:
m_{cm} = \frac{\sum x_n m_n}{\sum m_n}

cookiemonster

The centre of mass is a position, not a mass.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 141 ·
5
Replies
141
Views
8K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K