Deriving the Roche limit(d) for body of mass M and satellite m

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PhysicsEnjoyer31415
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the Roche limit for a body of mass M and a satellite of mass m. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of the Roche limit, including the role of gravitational forces and tidal effects, while addressing discrepancies in derived values and references.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the issue is not with Newtonian gravity, suggesting it is valid in the planetary regime.
  • There is a reference to a previous value on Wikipedia that diverged from other sources, with speculation that it may have ignored orbital motion.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of the distance used in calculations, specifically the distinction between distance from the Earth's center and distance above its surface.
  • One participant points out a potential mistake in the derivation, arguing that the condition for disintegration involves comparing tidal forces to self-gravity, rather than simply equating gravitational forces.
  • A participant expresses a lack of familiarity with tidal forces and acknowledges the need for further study, indicating they are still in high school.
  • Another participant clarifies their intent in referencing the Wikipedia article, indicating a desire to understand the source of a specific numerical value.
  • There is acknowledgment that a referenced PDF helped clarify the topic, though one participant admits to not using it correctly initially.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the derivation of the Roche limit and the interpretation of the relevant forces involved.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the potential oversight of orbital motion in earlier derivations and the need for clarity on the definitions of distances used in calculations. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with the concepts involved.

PhysicsEnjoyer31415
Gold Member
Messages
65
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
So i recently studied some basic gravitation and tried deriving the roche limit(d) for body of mass M and satellite m but when i used the custom formula to get the roche limit of earth and moon , i was off by 195 km , is that normal or is my formula incorrect or is it because newtonian gravity becomes inaccurate at planetary scale?
IMG-20240519-WA0014.jpeg
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
1. It's definitely not a problem with Newtonian gravity. In the planetary regime it's completely kosher.
2. Are you comparing your result with the value that used to be on Wikipedia (as this page does: https://www.astronomicalreturns.com/2021/06/roche-limit-radius-of-disintegration.html)? It's not there any longer, as isn't their derivation, and I don't feel like dredging the edit history as to why. But I it was divergent from what you can find elsewhere (e.g. Zelik & Gregory, Astronomy and Astrophysics, similar derivation here: https://www.astro.umd.edu/~hamilton/ASTR630/handouts/RocheLimit.pdf) - it had a 2 under a cube root in one place, instead of 3, giving too low a value. Possibly because it ignored orbital motion, but it's just a guess. You ignore that too, but it's not the main issue.
3. Even using the ex-Wiki value, you're not off by 195 km, you're off by 195km-6370km. Your d is distance above Earth's surface, not the distance from the centre that the ~9500 km indicates.
4. If I see correctly what you did there, the mistake in the derivation is that you've set up the initial equation for where the gravity between the two bodies is equal. This is not the condition for disintegration, as the satellite can very well be accelerated in its entirety by such gravitational potential and not suffer for it, as long as it's done uniformly. You need to set up the equation by comparing the tidal forces on the edge of the satellite to its self-gravity. Check the references above for example derivations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhysicsEnjoyer31415
Bandersnatch said:
1. It's definitely not a problem with Newtonian gravity. In the planetary regime it's completely kosher.
2. Are you comparing your result with the value that used to be on Wikipedia (as this page does: https://www.astronomicalreturns.com/2021/06/roche-limit-radius-of-disintegration.html)? It's not there any longer, as isn't their derivation, and I don't feel like dredging the edit history as to why. But I it was divergent from what you can find elsewhere (e.g. Zelik & Gregory, Astronomy and Astrophysics, similar derivation here: https://www.astro.umd.edu/~hamilton/ASTR630/handouts/RocheLimit.pdf) - it had a 2 under a cube root in one place, instead of 3, giving too low a value. Possibly because it ignored orbital motion, but it's just a guess. You ignore that too, but it's not the main issue.
3. Even using the ex-Wiki value, you're not off by 195 km, you're off by 195km-6370km. Your d is distance above Earth's surface, not the distance from the centre that the ~9500 km indicates.
4. If I see correctly what you did there, the mistake in the derivation is that you've set up the initial equation for where the gravity between the two bodies is equal. This is not the condition for disintegration, as the satellite can very well be accelerated in its entirety by such gravitational potential and not suffer for it, as long as it's done uniformly. You need to set up the equation by comparing the tidal forces on the edge of the satellite to its self-gravity. Check the references above for example derivations.
Hmm it seems i need to study more , i am in high school still so i am not aware of calculations and formulae regarding tidal forces but ill try to understand that. Also wasnt aware of wiki article , i just spontaneously decided to do it without any previous references .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G
My comment about the Wiki was just me trying to track down where you got the ~9500km number from, that you were comparing your own result to. I should have just asked you instead of playing detective.

BTW, you don't need to learn anything more than what you used in your attempt to follow what's being done (check that second link). It's pretty much just a matter of setting up the forces properly, followed by some algebra.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhysicsEnjoyer31415
Oh i got that 9500 number from google and some pdf by nasa if i remember it was like 9496 km or something.I saw the Rochelimit pdf and it helped a lot i was not using it correctly enough sorry👍
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K