Gravity & conservation of energy with two bodies

AI Thread Summary
In a system of two bodies orbiting each other in deep space, their orbits will remain stable indefinitely under classical mechanics, as gravitational forces are conservative and do not dissipate energy. However, according to general relativity, gravitational waves can be emitted, leading to a gradual decay of their orbits over time, particularly if the orbits are non-circular. This energy loss is minimal and can be considered negligible for practical purposes, making the orbits appear eternal. Once the orbits become circular, the system stops losing orbital energy. Overall, while stability is maintained, there is a theoretical basis for eventual decay due to gravitational wave emission.
mjcguest
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I just want to get my head straight on something with regards to relativity and gravity - I think it's a simple question (or rather has a simple answer!) so there's no trick agenda here.

If I have two bodies orbiting each other in deep space - far enough out for other gravitational forces to be effectively ignored, then will their orbits remain stable for effectivly ever, or will their orbits gradually decay?

For the purpose of the question, assume that they are perfect spheres, the same temperature as the space they travel through and tidally locked respect to each other (they are the only three energy sapping things I can think of that are relevant)

Thanks
Matt
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi there,

I also suppose that the two objects are in orbit since a while, meaning that they are in an equilibrium state. Then the simple answer is "no". The bodies will keep orbiting forever. There is no such things as a fading gravitational force.

Cheers
 
you don't have to make any assumptions, classically, the gravitational field is conservative, when the moon orbits the Earth it's moving in an equipotential surface, so it doesn't gain or lose energy.
in general relativity, you have to redefine the straight line as the shortest distance in time connecting two points in space, according to this definition the moon is moving in a straight line inertially.
 
This may seem like a nit-pick, but I think it's somewhat important;

With two bodies orbiting each other, GR predicts that gravity waves will be generated. These gravity waves will serve as a mechanism for energy loss, and the orbits will decay over time. It is an extremely slow process, and the detection of gravity waves has not yet been confirmed with much certainty (at least, it hadn't been the last time I checked).

The fact that the energy loss is so small can lead one to say that the orbits are essentially eternal. But, the fact that there is any energy loss at all is a reminder that nothing lasts forever.
 
Ah - If I have this right, then I think something I've read a number of times and never really thought about what it means has finally clicked; That is

- Gravity is not a force in the sense of "one thing doing something to another"- if it were, then it implies a spend of energy, which would have to be compensated for in some way, be it enlarged orbit or whatever...
- Gravity really does "tell space how to bend", so an object in a stable orbit is simply following the law that deals with objects continuing to move constantly in a "straight" line until a force acts upon them.

Lurch - thank you for your point; a nice reminder that nothing is ever quite as simple as it seems!

It's so nice to find a forum where a newb question isn't met with derisory comments and flames. Thanks all!
 
mjcguest said:
I just want to get my head straight on something with regards to relativity and gravity - I think it's a simple question (or rather has a simple answer!) so there's no trick agenda here.

If I have two bodies orbiting each other in deep space - far enough out for other gravitational forces to be effectively ignored, then will their orbits remain stable for effectivly ever, or will their orbits gradually decay?

For the purpose of the question, assume that they are perfect spheres, the same temperature as the space they travel through and tidally locked respect to each other (they are the only three energy sapping things I can think of that are relevant)

Thanks
Matt


If the orbits of the two bodies are non-circular then according to GR the system as a whole will lose orbital energy to emission of gravitational waves. This will tend to circularize the orbits. Once the orbits are circular the system will no longer lose orbital energy.

Source of this information: the following fascinating article by Kevin Brown:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath249/kmath249.htm
'Lead-Lag Frequency Response'
(For a shortcut to the goodies, find the word 'quadrupole' in that article)

Cleonis
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top