Central force field-condition for closed orbits.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the conditions for closed stable orbits in a central force field described by the equation \(\overrightarrow{F}=-kr^{n}\hat{r}\). It concludes that stable orbits are possible for \(n=-2\) and also identifies turning points at \(n=1\) and \(n=-1\). The participant initially equated kinetic energy to potential energy, which was deemed incorrect, as the energies vary throughout the orbit. The key takeaway is that a minimum energy condition is necessary for stable orbits.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of central force fields and their mathematical representation
  • Familiarity with kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE) concepts
  • Knowledge of the relationship between force, energy, and stability in orbital mechanics
  • Basic calculus for integrating force to find potential energy
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the conditions for stable orbits in gravitational fields, focusing on \(n=-2\) scenarios
  • Learn about the implications of energy conservation in orbital mechanics
  • Research the mathematical derivation of potential energy from force functions
  • Explore the concept of turning points in potential energy graphs
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying classical mechanics and orbital dynamics, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to central force fields and stable orbits.

humanist rho
Messages
92
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




A particle moves in the central force field \overrightarrow{F}=-kr^{n}\hat{r} , where k is a constant, and r is the distance from the origin. For what values of n closed stable orbits are possible?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I thought for stable configuration Kinetic energy = potential energy.

for central force field,

\frac{mv^{2}}{r}=-kr^{n}

ie,KE,\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}=-kr^{(n+1)}

and PE = -\int Fdr=\frac{kr^{(n+1)}}{n+1}

For stabe configuration,

-kr^{(n+1)}=\frac{kr^{(n+1)}}{n+1}

n=-2

But the answer says there's two turning points at n=1 and n=-1.
I think my method is absolutely wrong. :cry:

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
humanist rho said:
I thought for stable configuration Kinetic energy = potential energy.
This can't be correct. For 1/r2 forces, for example, the potential energy is negative, so it obviously can't be equal to the kinetic energy. Also, the kinetic energy and potential energy vary over an orbit, so even if they were equal at one time, they wouldn't be equal later.

Any other ideas on what's required for a stable orbit?
 
Thank you vela.
vela said:
Any other ideas on what's required for a stable orbit?


The energy should be a minimum for a stable orbit.is that correct?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K