Can a change in units cancel out G/4π2 in Kepler's third law?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Kepler's third law in different units, specifically how using years, solar masses, and astronomical units can simplify the equation by canceling out G/4π². Participants emphasize the importance of substituting the correct units to understand the simplification, noting that applying the formula to the Earth's orbit illustrates this cancellation. A secondary topic arises regarding a binary star system problem, where confusion about the separation in astronomical units leads to further inquiries about the relationship between parallax and distance. Clarification on the definition of a parsec and its connection to astronomical units is provided, highlighting the significance of understanding these unit conversions. Overall, the discussion underscores the necessity of grasping unit definitions and conversions in astrophysics calculations.
physiks
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
For two two bodies of mass M1 and M2 in circular orbits of radius a1, a2 about their common centre of mass, the Newtonian modification of Kepler's third law is
a3/P2=G(M1+M2)/4π2.
Where a=a1+a2.

The problem is that I have been told that when using the units of years, solar masses and astronomical units, this reduces to
a3/P2=M1+M2.
I'm not sure how to show this is true, and find it quite strange that such a unit change could manage to perfectly cancel out G/4π2. The internet and textbooks don't seem to be very helpful about this so I was hoping somebody could point me in the right way, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, these types of problems don't solve themselves. Have you tried plugging in the different units to see if you obtain the supposed simplification?
 
Try applying your formula for the Earth's orbit and you will understand that miraculous cancelation
 
dauto said:
Try applying your formula for the Earth's orbit and you will understand that miraculous cancelation

Oh wow, so simple (and slightly obvious). Thanks!

As it happens I'm having more astrophysics unit problems which I was hoping somebody could help with, which appear in the following problem:
Two stars in a binary system have a separation of s=3'' and a trigonometric parallax of p=0.1''. They have a orbital period of 30 years and the secondary star is five times further from the centre of mass than the primary star. Find the star masses for an inclination of zero degrees (face on orbit).

m1r1=m2r2 gives m1=5m2.
The distance to the system in parsecs is one over the parallax i.e 1/p=10. The solution then states that the separation in AU a=s/p=30, which I don't understand.
Kepler's third law then gives the solution.

1/p is in parsecs and then s is in arcseconds, so a has units arcseconds per parsec. I can't see how that can be AU...
 
physiks said:
Oh wow, so simple (and slightly obvious). Thanks!

As it happens I'm having more astrophysics unit problems which I was hoping somebody could help with, which appear in the following problem:
Two stars in a binary system have a separation of s=3'' and a trigonometric parallax of p=0.1''. They have a orbital period of 30 years and the secondary star is five times further from the centre of mass than the primary star. Find the star masses for an inclination of zero degrees (face on orbit).

m1r1=m2r2 gives m1=5m2.
The distance to the system in parsecs is one over the parallax i.e 1/p=10. The solution then states that the separation in AU a=s/p=30, which I don't understand.
Kepler's third law then gives the solution.

1/p is in parsecs and then s is in arcseconds, so a has units arcseconds per parsec. I can't see how that can be AU...

You need to refresh yourself on the definition of the parsec unit:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
 
SteamKing said:
You need to refresh yourself on the definition of the parsec unit:

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

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

Defined as the parallax of one arcsecond? There doesn't seem to be anything there that relates it to astronomical units as there seems to be above...

Edit: Parallax of one arcsecond when the baseline is 1AU! That might help, I'll get back to you if I still have any issues, thanks!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top