Conservation of mechanical energy in a system

AI Thread Summary
In a system of three planets governed solely by gravity, mechanical energy is conserved during elastic collisions. To calculate potential energy at any time, one must consider the gravitational interactions between all distinct pairs of planets, using the formula for point-like particles. The potential energy is defined up to an arbitrary constant, which does not affect conservation laws. A user reported a decrease in mechanical energy over time, leading to concerns about numerical stability and rounding errors in calculations. Suggestions included verifying program accuracy and using high precision math libraries to address potential instabilities.
ImAnEngineer
Messages
209
Reaction score
1
Suppose we have a universe consisting of three planets. Their velocities and positions at t=0, and the gravitational constant are known. One can calculate, using differential equations, the positions of the planets at any time.
Assuming that the only force acting on the planets is gravity and that whenever the planets collide it is in an completely elastic manner, will there be conservation of mechanical energy?

Also, if one wants to calculate the potential energy at any time t, how can that be done? What do we take as "reference point"? The center of mass of all masses in the universe ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, total energy is conserved if the only forces acting are inverse square laws.

The potential energy has to be taken over all distinct pairs AB, BC, AC so that the total potential energy for pointlike particles is
V=-\frac{Gm_Am_B}{|\vec{r}_A-\vec{r}_B|}-\frac{Gm_Bm_C}{|\vec{r}_B-\vec{r}_C|}-\frac{Gm_Cm_A}{|\vec{r}_C-\vec{r}_A|}
Note that to be exact for extended planets there should be a detailed calculation for all constituents since some parts of the planet are closer than other parts.
Potential energy is like an indefinite integral, so that it is only defined up to an added constant. Which constant you add doesn't matter (here I added no constant), as potential energy is only used for the conservation law.
 
Gerenuk said:
Yes, total energy is conserved if the only forces acting are inverse square laws.

The potential energy has to be taken over all distinct pairs AB, BC, AC so that the total potential energy for pointlike particles is
V=-\frac{Gm_Am_B}{|\vec{r}_A-\vec{r}_B|}-\frac{Gm_Bm_C}{|\vec{r}_B-\vec{r}_C|}-\frac{Gm_Cm_A}{|\vec{r}_C-\vec{r}_A|}
Note that to be exact for extended planets there should be a detailed calculation for all constituents since some parts of the planet are closer than other parts.
Potential energy is like an indefinite integral, so that it is only defined up to an added constant. Which constant you add doesn't matter (here I added no constant), as potential energy is only used for the conservation law.

Thank you, that formula makes a lot of sense :) . I was allowed to treat the planets as point particles.

I used the formule in my mathematica file. However I get a smaller amount of mechanical energy at t=50 than at t=0 (decrease of 10.6%). I assume I did nothing wrong, because in the assignment it is asked why there is a change in mechanical energy.

Knowing that you don't know the details, it's probably hard to say with certainty why that is. But do you have any suggestions as to what it could possibly be?
 
You can first check if your program is OK. For example take two planets and see if you get perfect ellipses.

Apart from that I can only imagine that numeric instabilities in the calculations pile up as you do more of them. Like rounding errors or so. You could try introducing artifical very small errors in the calculation (add a small number at some steps) and then see if adding this number makes a lot of difference in the end result. If it does, then probably the rounding error eventually also prevail. You could try using a high precision math library and see if the result changes.
 
Also check to verify that the total angular momentum is conserved.

Bob S
 
Gerenuk said:
You can first check if your program is OK. For example take two planets and see if you get perfect ellipses.

Apart from that I can only imagine that numeric instabilities in the calculations pile up as you do more of them. Like rounding errors or so. You could try introducing artifical very small errors in the calculation (add a small number at some steps) and then see if adding this number makes a lot of difference in the end result. If it does, then probably the rounding error eventually also prevail. You could try using a high precision math library and see if the result changes.
Indeed, I get ellipses or hyperbolae, or parbolae depending on the chosen initial conditions.
I'll ask my instructor what this is about... kinda strange.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top