Is the gravitational binding energy formula different for stars and galaxies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kmarinas86
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the gravitational binding energy of self-gravitating systems, particularly stars, and the discrepancies in the formulas used to calculate it. It highlights that while the gravitational binding energy is typically expressed as G(M_tot^2/R_tot), this may not apply uniformly across different celestial bodies. The conversation points out that half of the gravitational binding energy in contracting systems converts to thermal motion and radiation, raising questions about the accuracy of existing equations. Participants express confusion over the need for a 3/5 factor in gravitational potential energy calculations for uniform spherical objects. Overall, there is a call for clarification on the correct formulas and their applicability to various astronomical structures.
kmarinas86
Messages
974
Reaction score
1
From http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/vt.htm :

Conditions:
Stable
Self-gravitating
Spherical distributions
Equal mass objects

KE=\frac{1}{2}M_{tot}v^2
PE\simeq-\frac{1}{2}G\frac{M_{tot}^2}{R_{tot}}
KE\simeq-\frac{1}{2}PE
M_{tot}\simeq 2\frac{R_{tot}v^2}{G}

http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/phys2080/nuc/virial.htm

"When an ideal self gravitating system contract, half of the gravitational binding energy goes into thermal motion (heat) and the other half goes into radiation which is lost into space."

From above:

KE\simeq-\frac{1}{2}PE

Given the quote just above:

Gravitational\ binding\ energy\simeq-PE

Gravitational\ binding\ energy\simeq\frac{1}{2}G\frac{M_{tot}^2}{R_{tot}}

But, this is not right for a star. For a star, it is:

Gravitational\ binding\ energy=G\frac{M_{tot}^2}{R_{tot}}

This would mean that one fourth of the gravitational binding energy goes into thermal energy, or one half of of the gravitational potential energy.

Something is not jibing, but what is it?

_________
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
kmarinas86 said:
Gravitational\ binding\ energy\simeq\frac{1}{2}G\frac{M_{tot}^2}{R_{tot}}

But, this is not right for a star. For a star, it is:

Gravitational\ binding\ energy=G\frac{M_{tot}^2}{R_{tot}}
Well, at least one of those two expressions must be wrong (I think they both are). Where did you get them from? Shouldn't there be a 3/5 factor for the GPE of a uniform, spherical object?
 
Gokul43201 said:
Well, at least one of those two expressions must be wrong (I think they both are). Where did you get them from? Shouldn't there be a 3/5 factor for the GPE of a uniform, spherical object?

Yes. But for a star its different GM^2/r.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy

For a galaxy, I'm not sure.

The fact that there are different fractions used makes me wary. Anyone have the full list?
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top