Calculating Masses Using Gravitational Force Equations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating masses using the gravitational force equation F=Gm1m2/r^2. Participants derive two equations: M1xM2 = 1 x 10^18 and M1 + M2 = 2.5x10^9. The challenge arises when substituting these equations, leading to a quadratic equation in m1. The consensus is that assuming m1 = m2 simplifies the problem, allowing for a unique solution to the masses involved.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational force equations, specifically F=Gm1m2/r^2
  • Knowledge of algebraic manipulation, including solving quadratic equations
  • Familiarity with the concepts of mass and gravitational interactions
  • Basic understanding of variables and equations in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and application of gravitational force equations in physics
  • Learn how to solve quadratic equations effectively
  • Explore the implications of assuming equal masses in gravitational problems
  • Investigate other methods for solving systems of equations in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, mathematicians focusing on algebraic equations, and anyone interested in gravitational calculations and problem-solving techniques.

ELLE_AW
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Two celestial bodies form an isolated system in a remote region in space. When they are separated by a distance of 5000m, and they attract each other with a force of 2.67 N. If the total mass of the system is 2.5 x 10^9, then what is the mass of each celestial body?
Relevant Equations
F=Gm1m2/r^2
F=Gm1m2/r^2
2.67 = (6.67x10^-11)(m1xm2)/25000000
M1xM2 = 1 x 10^18
M2 = 1x10^18/M1 (Equation 1)

From the question stem, we know M1 + M2 = 2.5x10^9 (Equation 2)

So, substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 we get:
1x10^18/m1 + m1 = 2.5 x 10^9

I'M STUCK FROM HERE ONWARDS... in the solutions manual they show that the m1 gets squared and you end up with a quadratic equation that you have to solve to get the two values for the masses. But, where does the squaring come in? I don't get it.

NEVERMIND, I got it! Just rusty algebra.. haha!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Either there is something missing from the problem statement or you need to make an assumption about the masses involved, such as the two being equal, if you want to arrive at a single numerical answer for the masses. Otherwise there would be an infinite number of combinations of mass values that would satisfy the given constraints.

If the solution involves m1 being squared then I strongly suspect that they expect you to assume that m1 = m2.

Can you provide any other information from the original problem statement as it was presented to you?
 
gneill said:
Either there is something missing from the problem statement or you need to make an assumption about the masses involved, such as the two being equal, if you want to arrive at a single numerical answer for the masses. Otherwise there would be an infinite number of combinations of mass values that would satisfy the given constraints.
It seems quote solvable. You have two equations and two unknowns.
$$m_1+m_2=m_{tot}$$ $$\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}=F$$
##F##, ##m_{tot}## and ##r## are all given. So you solve the first equation for ##m_1## in terms of ##m_2## and the second equation turns into a quadratic in ##m_1##.

By inspection, the two solutions (if any) will be mirror images of one another.
 
jbriggs444 said:
By inspection, the two solutions (if any) will be mirror images of one another.
And will there be specific values for either, or will there be an expression relating the two values?
 
gneill said:
And will there be specific values for either, or will there be an expression relating the two values?
Specific values for both. Once you solve the quadratic for ##m_1##, you can easily find ##m_2##.
 
I concede your point. There are indeed a pair of mass values that either body can have that will resolve the problem. (I think I may have been dozing while I posted before. My apologies to @ELLE_AW). Cheers, jbriggs.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K