B Gravity Constant: How Calculated & How to Measure Planet Weight

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Astro021
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant Gravity
AI Thread Summary
The gravity constant, known as G, was famously measured by Henry Cavendish using a torsion balance in a laboratory experiment. Newton's theory of gravitation allows scientists to calculate the mass of planets by analyzing the relationship between their orbital radius and period, particularly when the orbiting object is much lighter than the central mass. The mass of Earth is easily determined through direct measurements of gravitational force at its surface. Historical experiments, such as the 18th Century pendulum test on Schiehallion Mountain, provided early estimates of Earth's density and helped confirm G. Notably, the value of GM for Earth is known with greater precision than the individual values of G or M.
Astro021
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Hey I have a question and I’m sorry if some of you might find it too easy xD... How did people calculate or discover the gravity constant, and how do they know how much do planets weigh? Thanks for answers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Henry Cavendish performed the famous experiment measuring the value of G between two small masses in the lab. I had to repeat that experiment as an undergrad physics student. It used a delicate instrument called the torsion balance which, I was fascinated to learn fairly recently, was invented by Coulomb who is famous for his work on the electrostatic force.

The short answer to your second question is that Newton's theory of gravitation is used to calculate the masses of planets. But how?

If an object is much lighter than the thing it is orbiting (for instance planets around the sun), then the relationship between orbital radius and period tells you the mass of the thing it is orbiting because (to a good approximation) it only depends on the mass in the middle. So if we know the orbital radii of the planets and their periods, they can let us estimate the mass of the sun. And the behavior of planets' moons let's us estimate the mass of the planet.

In the exact Newton theory the mass of the planet or the moon comes into it, and you can use that to make more exact calculations.

The mass of the Earth is easy because we live here, we know the radius and we can directly measure how much gravitational force it causes to things on the surface.

Here's an article covering that: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-measure/
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and anorlunda
In the 18th Century, an experiment was performed, using a Scottish Mountain and a Pendulum, to measure / estimate the average density of the Earth. They chose a mountain (Schiehallion) that was known to be very dense (contain lots of iron ore, iirc). and noted by how much a pendulum was deflected by its presence. That gave Scientists a starter for measuring / confirming G and obtaining information about the other astronomical objects. Newton, apparently, rejected the idea of that particular experiment but it was the first time that absolute data was obtained about the masses of those objects.
Edit: Newton was a bit of a 'not invented here' merchant and he didn't make the right choices every time!
 
One point of interest. For certain bodies, such as the Earth, we actually know the value of the product GM to a higher accuracy than we know the value of either G or M.
GM for the Earth is 3.986004418e14(8) while G is 6.67408(31)e-11, a fair difference in the number of significant digits.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?

Similar threads

Back
Top