Center of mass and REduced mass

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between reduced mass and center of mass in multi-body systems. The reduced mass formula is traditionally defined for two masses, but participants explore its extension to multiple masses, suggesting a generalized form. The center of mass is clarified as a positional concept rather than a mass itself, emphasizing its role in simplifying calculations in two-body problems. A more complex formulation involving a matrix for N-particle systems is proposed, showcasing how energy equations can be adapted. Overall, the conversation highlights the mathematical intricacies and physical implications of these concepts in physics.
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.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
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...
Back
Top