Derive the equation for the shape of an orbit

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the equation for the shape of an orbit, specifically focusing on the relationship between the masses involved and the resulting equations. The original poster presents an equation but expresses uncertainty about the steps needed to arrive at the desired final result.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the clarity and correctness of the original poster's notes and equations, noting inconsistencies and potential misunderstandings. There are discussions about the definitions of variables, particularly the constant ##p##, and the dimensional analysis of the equations presented.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on the original poster's approach and suggesting that further clarification from the professor or peers may be necessary. Some guidance is offered regarding the need for a function of ##r## in the effective potential equation, but no consensus has been reached on the correct steps to take.

Contextual Notes

There are indications that the original notes may be incomplete or incorrect, and the original poster is encouraged to seek additional resources or clarification to fill in the gaps. The assignment appears to involve multiple steps and changes of variables, which have not been fully articulated in the original post.

Cocoleia
Messages
293
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


I am given this equation:
upload_2016-11-12_13-37-58.png

where m and M are masses.
I have to obtain the following as a final result:
upload_2016-11-12_13-39-56.png


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


so far, I have done this (This may not be the most efficient or the easiest way, but it is how my professor wants it to be done)
upload_2016-11-12_13-41-10.png

I am stuck at what to do for the part where I wrote {steps}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are several places that don't look right.

You wrote
upload_2016-11-12_13-36-46.png
. The right-hand side looks like a constant instead of being a function of ##r##.

You wrote
upload_2016-11-12_13-38-3.png
followed by
upload_2016-11-12_13-38-40.png
. These don't agree.

In the expression
upload_2016-11-12_13-39-45.png
it is not clear if the -1 is an exponent on ##r##. Note that ##r - 1## in the denominator cannot be correct since ##r## has dimensions but 1 does not. This might be causing the problems in filling in the {steps} to get the final expression for ##r##.

You did not define what ##p## stands for. Is it just an arbitrary constant?
 
Last edited:
TSny said:
There are several places that don't look right.

You wrote View attachment 108813. The right-hand side looks like a constant instead of being a function of ##r##.

You wrote View attachment 108814 followed by View attachment 108815. These don't agree.

In the expression View attachment 108816 it is not clear if the -1 is an exponent on ##r##. Note that ##r - 1## in the denominator cannot be correct since ##r## has dimensions but 1 does not. This might be causing the problems in filling in the {steps} to get the final expression for ##r##.

You did not define what ##p## stands for. Is it just an arbitrary constant?
These are the exact steps that my prof wrote on the board, I have no idea, it's possible that it is all wrong. I believe that p is a constant. Usually when stuff isn't defined it's just a constant.
 
The right hand side of
upload_2016-11-12_15-27-40.png
doesn't look right.

To see what it should be, take the given answer
upload_2016-11-12_15-27-6.png
and solve for ##\cos(\theta - \theta_0)##.
 
Your notes are incorrect. You may have copied them incorrectly. You should probably consult the professor, or other students in the class to see if their notes agree with yours. If the professor really did right the equation for effective potential U (eff), (s)he is clearly wrong. U eff should be a function of r, in order to get the equation for the ellipse at the end.

You can also consult several textbooks, such as Symon, Mechanics, or Marion and Thornton, Mechanics of Particles and Systems. There are many steps that are skipped here. The actual argument runs several pages, and involves at least two changes of variable. The notes you have written are sparse. It could be your professor wants you to supply the missing steps using this outline as a guideline. I do think this would be a tough assignment.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K