Conservation of mechanical energy in a system

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of mechanical energy in a system of three planets influenced solely by gravitational forces. Participants explore the implications of elastic collisions and the calculation of potential energy, including considerations for reference points and numerical stability in simulations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant posits that total energy is conserved under inverse square law forces and discusses the calculation of potential energy for distinct pairs of planets.
  • Another participant expresses confusion over a decrease in mechanical energy in their simulation, suggesting that potential numerical instabilities or rounding errors may be responsible.
  • Suggestions are made to verify the accuracy of the simulation by checking for conservation of angular momentum and testing simpler cases with two planets.
  • Participants note that potential energy is defined up to an arbitrary constant, which does not affect conservation laws.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the principles of energy conservation under the specified conditions, but there is uncertainty regarding the decrease in mechanical energy observed in simulations, with no consensus on the cause of this discrepancy.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential numerical instabilities in simulations, dependence on the definitions of potential energy, and the need for detailed calculations for extended bodies rather than point particles.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners interested in gravitational systems, numerical simulations in physics, and the principles of energy conservation in mechanics.

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
[tex]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|}[/tex]
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
[tex]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|}[/tex]
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K