Gravitational Potential Enery Problem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a gravitational potential energy problem involving an Earth-like object falling towards a neutron star. Participants explore the implications of this scenario, particularly focusing on calculating the resulting temperature of the accretion disc formed after the object breaks up. The conversation touches on theoretical applications of the virial theorem and the assumptions made regarding mass and particle count.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines the problem and applies the virial theorem to relate kinetic and potential energy, seeking to calculate the temperature of the accretion disc.
  • Another participant points out that the initial equation may be missing a term related to the number of particles, suggesting that the left-hand side should account for more than just the kinetic energy of a single particle.
  • A different participant recalculates using the number of particles and finds a temperature of 10^(30) Kelvin, still considered excessively high.
  • Concerns are raised about the definitions of variables, particularly the mass of the object (m) and the implications of using the mass of an iron atom versus the mass of the Earth.
  • One participant suggests that if the number of particles is indeed around 10^50, the resulting temperature could be more reasonable, around 10^6 Kelvin.
  • Another participant warns against accepting any temperature exceeding the Planck temperature, indicating potential flaws in the assumptions made in the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the equations used and the assumptions made regarding mass and particle count. There is no consensus on the final temperature calculation or the validity of the initial approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem was presented in an introductory astronomy class, which may limit the complexity of the expected solution. There are also discussions about the appropriateness of the virial theorem in this context and the implications of using different definitions for mass.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts in astrophysics, particularly those exploring gravitational interactions, accretion processes, and the application of the virial theorem in theoretical scenarios.

blumfeld0
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Gravitational Potential Energy Problem

I have this problem and it has been bugging me
The problem (if i recall correctly) went like this:
Ive got an Earth like object ( m = 6E24 kg) that will fall 1 A.U = 1.5E11 m
towards a neutron star with a radius of 1E4 m. At this point it will presumably break up and form an accretion disc around the neutron star.
The goal is to calculate roughly the resulting temperature of the accretion disc.

so i started by assuming the virial theorem applies
Kinetic energy = 1/2 * Potential energy
so,
3/2 kT = G M m / 2 r (1)

I am trying to solve for Temperature but I do not know the mass of the neutron star M. I know m = 6E24 and i know r = 1.5E11 m
how do I solve for M?

well here's what i did
M = density * volume
I took a typical density of a neutron star, say, 1E18 kg/m^3
I know volume = 4/3 Pi r^3 and r = 1E4 m
I get mass of neutron star = 4E30 kg

plug this into (1)

I find the temperature to be 10^*(56) kelvin?

thats ginormous! where did i go wrong? or perhaps that was the point of the equation?

blumfeld0
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Hi. Perhaps this post belongs in the Astrophysics or General Astronomy category.

Could the moderator please move it if doesn't belong here to increase the chances of reply?

thank you
 
blumfeld0 said:
so i started by assuming the virial theorem applies
Kinetic energy = 1/2 * Potential energy
so,
3/2 kT = G M m / 2 r (1)

I am trying to solve for Temperature but I do not know the mass of the neutron star M. I know m = 6E24 and i know r = 1.5E11 m
how do I solve for M?

in your equation (1)
some factor is missing in the LHS because that is just the kinetic energy of a single particle

but on the RHS you have a bulk energy distributed among many particles
=============

there are other things one could say, like have you calculated the energy derived from the planet falling approx one AU
and thought about where that energy went and if some of the mass of the planet was blown away

but I would not worry about the other issues first, first thing is to make sure your equation (1) is right
and I think it is missing a term on the LHS corresponding to N, number of particles
 
Last edited:
thank you for the reply. well this question was asked in an introductory astronomy class so I am not sure how complicated he wanted us to do things. he doesn't teach that well and claims we have learned what we need to know to solve this problem.

i took your suggestion and used

3/2 n K T = G M m / 2 r

and i found n to be about 1 *10^(26) particles
using this i still calculate the temperature of the accretion disc to be

10^(30) Kelvin.

which is still enormous!

i should mention something that i forgot to mention earlier that the teacher made a specific point in saying that the the Earth sized object falling towards the neutron star was made of iron.

thats how i calculated n in the first place
using
n = M total / Miron where Mtotal = mass of Earth and i looked up the mass of one iron atom in kilograms.

but the point is that the temperature before I didnt include n was 10^(56) K.
In order to reduce that to a "reasonable" number you'd the number of particles to be like 10^40 or higher. so i think there might be something more fundamental wrong here?




thank you
 
Last edited:
blumfeld0 said:
i took your suggestion and used

3/2 n K T = G M m / 2 r

and i found n to be about 1 *10^(26) particles
using this i still calculate the temperature of the accretion disc to be

10^(30) Kelvin.

which is still enormous!

In this equation what does m stand for? I thought you were using it for the mass of the earth. In that case n should be more like 10^50
and you have made it 10^26
so that is one reason you get way too high a temperature.

But maybe you want m to be the mass of an iron atom? If you are just solving the equation for ONE SINGLE IRON ATOM in orbit around the neutron star then the n (equals the number of particles) really should be ONE the way you had it at first!

I don't understand your approach, so maybe someone else will step in and give you some coaching. In the meantime, in any case it would be a good idea to learn to use the google calculator. it is a great laborsaving device. You want the mass of Earth divided by the mass of an iron atom (which is 56 atomic mass units) then there is NOTHING TO LOOK UP you simply type this into the google box:

mass of earth/(56 atomic mass unit)=

You type that into the window and press return and it will give back
mass of Earth / (56 atomic mass unit) = 6.4245496 × 10^49[/color]

TRY IT, it's great! However it doesn't round off, and seven places is unreasonable precision, so round it off to 6.4 or simply to 6
(dont give your teacher something that says 6.42454... when he just wants an approximate answer)

So something with one Earth mass made of iron atoms would contain 6 x 10^49 atoms.

=====================
 
Last edited:
wow thank you yeah if it is like 10^50 particles then the answer is VERY reasonable only 10^6 Kelvin
thanks!
 
Last edited:
I would be very suspicious of any answer that exceeds the Planck temperature. It's a clear indicator of a faulty assumption.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K