Kepler's Laws, two large bodies

  • Thread starter Thread starter bbbl67
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    bodies Laws
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the orbital radius and speed of a star orbiting a black hole with a mass of approximately 3 solar masses and an orbital period of 2.4 hours. The provided answer for the orbital radius is 5.7E8 m, but participants express confusion over how to derive this using Kepler's laws, particularly due to the need for assumptions about the star's mass. It is noted that the simplified Kepler equations may not apply since both bodies have significant mass. The conversation highlights the challenge of solving for two unknowns without additional information, suggesting that assumptions about the star's mass are necessary to proceed. Ultimately, the complexity of the problem illustrates the limitations of applying Kepler's laws in scenarios involving massive bodies.
bbbl67
Messages
216
Reaction score
21
< Mentor Note -- thread moved to HH from the technical physics forums, so no HH Template is shown >[/color]

Here is something that some one asked me, as their homework question, and it stumped me.

A star is seen orbiting a black hole. The black hole's mass is 6.0E30 kg (approx, 3 solar masses). The star has an orbital period of 2.4 hours. The questions are:

(A) What is the star’s orbital radius in meters?
(B) What is the star’s orbital speed in m/s?

For #A, they were given the answer to be 5.7E8 m. But they couldn't match how they got that answer. My feeling is since it's a stellar mass black hole and a star, the two objects are relatively close in mass to each other, so you can't use the simplified Kepler equations, you have to use the general Kepler equations:

T2 = (4 Π2 r3)/(G (M1 + M2))

But I'm not sure about how to solve this, given that there are two unknowns here, the orbital radius, and the mass of the star. How do you go about solving for the star mass?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot determine the mass, the radius or anything else without additional assumptions. As the question asks for radius, I guess you have to make some assumption about the star's mass.
 
mfb said:
You cannot determine the mass, the radius or anything else without additional assumptions. As the question asks for radius, I guess you have to make some assumption about the star's mass.
That's what I figured, but I thought I might be missing something. Maybe an assumed equation that let's you simultaneously solve both variables together?
 
The star is just at the Roche limit? That would give an interesting question.
The star is our sun?
The star is very light compared to the black hole?

I don't know.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top