How Does Calculus Explain the Changing Rotational Energy of Pulsars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AStaunton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Pulsars
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of calculus to understand the changing rotational energy of pulsars, specifically focusing on the relationship between kinetic energy, period of rotation, and the use of derivatives in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the differentiation of kinetic energy with respect to the period of rotation, questioning the application of the chain rule and the interpretation of variables involved. Some express uncertainty about the legitimacy of their reasoning and seek clarification on taking derivatives of specific expressions.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants offering differing perspectives on the correctness of initial formulas and the application of calculus. There is an ongoing examination of assumptions regarding the definitions of variables, particularly the interpretation of period versus momentum.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential errors in the original formulation of the problem, particularly regarding the units and definitions of the variables involved. There is a recognition that the discussion may hinge on clarifying these foundational aspects before progressing further.

AStaunton
Messages
100
Reaction score
1
looking at my notes on pulsars I have:

[tex]K=\frac{2\pi^{2}I}{P^{2}}\implies dk=\frac{2\pi^{2}I}{P^{2}}dP\implies\frac{dk}{dt}=\frac{-4\pi^{2}I}{P^{3}}\frac{dP}{dt}[/tex]

where K is kinetic rotational energy and P is momentum...

I don't quite follow the final expression (when the time derivative is taken), when this is done to the final equality, it feels like the chain rule should be used as both dP and 2pi^2I/P^2 are functions of t...clearly I'm mistaken but I don't see why..I'm saying that I would have expected:

[tex]\frac{dk}{dt}=\frac{-4\pi^{2}I}{P^{3}}dP+\frac{2\pi^{2}I}{p^{2}}\frac{dP}{dt}[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think you should have applied the chain rule when you first move to differentials
 
one way I have reasoned the above result is that:

as [tex]\frac{dk}{dP}=\frac{-4\pi^{2}I}{P^{3}}[/tex] and as P is a function of t then can simply mulitiply both sides by dp/dt...

Although I reasoned thusly, it still feels pretty wishy-washy... and I don't know if that is a legit way of coming to that result..

it feels like the correct way of doing it should be to directly plug in the value of P into the equation.
ie as P=d(mx)dt plug that into the first equality I wrote up:

[tex]K=\frac{2\pi^{2}I}{(\frac{dmx}{dt})^{2}}[/tex]

and then take the time derivitave of the above expression...the problem is I do not know how to take time derivative of (dx/dt)^-2...could you give advice here?



Also, the final piece of latex code I left at the bottom of my last post was completely incorrect!
 
I think your notes are wrong. For one thing, if I is the moment of inertia, P has to have units of time, not momentum, for the units to work out. Your initial formula is

[tex]K = \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2 = \frac{1}{2}I\left(\frac{2\pi}{P}\right)^2 = \frac{2\pi^2I}{P^2}[/tex]

P isn't the momentum but the period of rotation, and the angular velocity is ω=2π/P.

If you ignore the intermediate step you have written down, which is incorrect, you have

[tex]K = \frac{2\pi^2I}{P^2} \hspace{0.2in} \Rightarrow \hspace{0.2in} \frac{dK}{dt} = -\frac{4\pi^2I}{P^3}\frac{dP}{dt}[/tex]

which you should recognize as a simple application of the chain rule.

The energy the pulsar radiates away ultimately comes from the rotational energy of the neutron star, which in turn affects the period of rotation. By measuring dP/dt, the rate at which a pulsar slows, you can determine the rate at which it radiates.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
943
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K