Law of universal gravitation and Kepler's law

In summary: Better still, use part 1. what is the change in a function whose derivative is constant?I don't fully understand what you are saying.
  • #1
Dietrichw
22
0

Homework Statement


Show that the rate of change of the free-fall acceleration with vertical position near the Earth's surface is
[tex] \frac{d}{dr} [g] = -\frac{2GM_E}{R_E^3} [/tex]

Assuming h is small in comparison to the radius of the Earth, show that the difference in free-fall acceleration between two points separated by vertical distance h is
[tex] \Delta g = \frac{(2GM_E h)}{R_E^3} [/tex]

Show that the minimum period for a satellite in orbit around a spherical planet of uniform density ρ is
[tex] T_{min} = \sqrt{ \frac{3\pi}{Gp}} [/tex]

Homework Equations


[tex] g=\frac{GM_E}{R_E^2} [/tex]
[tex] T^2=Kr^3 [/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I did the first one easily
[tex] \frac{d}{dr} [\frac{GM_E}{R_E^2}] [/tex]
[tex] \frac{d}{dr} [GM_E R_E^{-2}] [/tex]
simple power rule
The second and third not so much, I substituted one R with (R+h) as that is what it seems like is going on and find the difference. That did not work out for me
The third I thought about p= Mass/Volume and solving for R and substitute but I'm not sure what to do with K and Kepler's 3rd observation is the only equation that I have the deals with the period
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For part 1, ##R_E## is constant so you can't differentiate your formula with respect to ##r##.
 
  • #3
PeroK said:
For part 1, ##R_E## is constant so you can't differentiate your formula with respect to ##r##.
yes, in the situation described using Earth it would be a constant. I think they only did that to make it relatable but still treat it as a variable as it could be used for other bodies in space
 
  • #4
Dietrichw said:
yes, in the situation described using Earth it would be a constant. I think they only did that to make it relatable but still treat it as a variable as it could be used for other bodies in space
You could differentiate the formula for ##r## then replace ##r## with ##R_E##. That would be valid. What you have is not valid.

What went wrong for part 2?
 
  • #5
PeroK said:
You could differentiate the formula for ##r## then replace ##r## with ##R_E##. That would be valid. What you have is not valid.

What went wrong for part 2?
when trying to simplify I get a bigger mess that I don't know what to do with

[tex] \frac{-2GM_E}{R_E^3} - \frac{-2GM_E}{(R_E+h)^3} [/tex]

expanding (R+h)^3 gets me [tex] R^3 +3R^2h+3Rh^2+h^3 [/tex]
simplifying from there makes it worse
 
  • #6
Dietrichw said:
when trying to simplify I get a bigger mess that I don't know what to do with

[tex] \frac{-2GM_E}{R_E^3} - \frac{-2GM_E}{(R_E+h)^3} [/tex]

expanding (R+h)^3 gets me [tex] R^3 +3R^2h+3Rh^2+h^3 [/tex]
simplifying from there makes it worse
That's ##\Delta(dg/dr)## you are trying to calculate there.

The point of part was to show that ##dg/dr## is approximately constant.

It's ##\Delta g## you need to calculate.
 
  • #7
PeroK said:
That's ##\Delta(dg/dr)## you are trying to calculate there.

The point of part was to show that ##dg/dr## is approximately constant.

It's ##\Delta g## you need to calculate.
I thought so, I tried it with [tex] \frac{GM_E}{R_E^2} [/tex] but ran into the same issue at the same point, so I tried both
 
  • #8
Dietrichw said:
I thought so, I tried it with [tex] \frac{GM_E}{R_E^2} [/tex] but ran into the same issue at the same point, so I tried both
That should have worked. You need to use the binomial expansion doing it that way.

Instead, can you see how to use part 1? It's very simple. Compare the answers to parts 1 and 2.
 
  • #9
PeroK said:
That should have worked. You need to use the binomial expansion doing it that way.

Instead, can you see how to use part 1? It's very simple. Compare the answers to parts 1 and 2.
I expanded (R+h)^2 to
[tex] R^2+2Rh+h^2 [/tex]
multiplied to get a common denominator
[tex] \frac {(R^2 +2Rh+h^2)GM-R^2GM}{R^2(R^2 +2Rh+h^2)} [/tex]

I could only remove R^2GM after that
 
  • #10
Dietrichw said:
I expanded (R+h)^2 to
[tex] R^2+2Rh+h^2 [/tex]
multiplied to get a common denominator
[tex] \frac {(R^2 +2Rh+h^2)GM-R^2GM}{R^2(R^2 +2Rh+h^2)} [/tex]

I could only remove R^2GM after that

The point of part 1 was to avoid this. You don't need to expand ##(R+h)^2##. Instead take out a factor of ##R^2## and use the binomial expansion.

Better still, use part 1. what is the change in a function whose derivative is constant?
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
The point of part 1 was to avoid this. You don't need to expand ##(R+h)^2##. Instead take out a factor of ##R^2## and use the binomial expansion.

Better still, use part 1. what is the change in a function whose derivative is constant?
I don't fully understand what you are saying.
What I am getting is
[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2} - \frac {GM}{(R+h)^2} [/tex]
then factor a ##R^2## from each term?
 
  • #12
Dietrichw said:
I don't fully understand what you are saying.
What I am getting is
[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2} - \frac {GM}{(R+h)^2} [/tex]
then factor a ##R^2## from each term?
yes, why not?
 
  • #13
PeroK said:
yes, why not?
so...

[tex] \frac{1}{R^2}(GM- \frac{GMR^2}{(R+h)^2} )[/tex]

I haven't done anything like this so I'm not too confident in what I am doing.
 
  • #14
Dietrichw said:
so...

[tex] \frac{1}{R^2}(GM- \frac{GMR^2}{(R+h)^2} )[/tex]

I haven't done anything like this so I'm not too confident in what I am doing.
what about

##\frac{GM}{R^2}(1 - \frac{1}{(1 +h/R)^2})##
 
  • #15
PeroK said:
what about

##\frac{GM}{R^2}(1 - \frac{1}{(1 +h/R)^2})##
oh yea, I could have also taken out ##GM## as well.
The ##\frac{1}{(1+h/R)^2}## is really confusing me
 
  • #16
Dietrichw said:
oh yea, I could have also taken out ##GM## as well.
The ##\frac{1}{(1+h/R)^2}## is really confusing me

##R^2(1+h/R)^2 = (R+h)^2##
 
  • #17
PeroK said:
##R^2(1+h/R)^2 = (R+h)^2##
okay so
[tex] R^2(1+h/R)^2 = R(1+h/R)R(1+h/R) = (R+hR/R)^2= (R+h)^2 [/tex]
that is really cool how that works out
 
  • #18
PeroK said:
The point of part 1 was to avoid this. You don't need to expand ##(R+h)^2##. Instead take out a factor of ##R^2## and use the binomial expansion.

Better still, use part 1. what is the change in a function whose derivative is constant?
[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2}(1-\frac{1}{(1+h/R)^2}) [/tex] can be rewritten as
[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2}(\frac{(1+h/R)^2-1}{(1+h/R)^2}) [/tex]

Then do the "binomial expansion" as you said?
 
  • #19
Dietrichw said:
[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2}(1-\frac{1}{(1+h/R)^2}) [/tex]

simply apply the binomial expansion to ##(1 + h/R)^{-2}##
 
  • #20
PeroK said:
simply apply the binomial expansion to ##(1 + h/R)^{-2}##
so
[tex] (1+h/R)^{-1} (1+h/R)^{-1} = (1+2(h/R) +h^2/R^2)^{-1} [/tex]

[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2} (1-(1+2(h/R) +h^2/R^2)^{-1}) [/tex]
 
  • #21
Dietrichw said:
so
[tex] (1+h/R)^{-1} (1+h/R)^{-1} = (1+2(h/R) +h^2/R^2)^{-1} [/tex]

[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2} (1-(1+2(h/R) +h^2/R^2)^{-1}) [/tex]
Thats not right at all. you need to brush up your maths. I'm going off line now.
 
  • #22
PeroK said:
Thats not right at all. you need to brush up your maths. I'm going off line now.
okay.

even dumming it down to (a+b)^2 = 1a+2ab+b^2
a=1 b= h/R so ## 1^2 +2*(1)(h/R)+ (h/R)^2##

something must be going right over my head if I am missing something so simple
 
  • #23
I'm still not getting what is wrong here. Am I not getting what you mean by binomial expansion?
 
  • #24
Dietrichw said:
I don't fully understand what you are saying.
What I am getting is
[tex] \frac{GM}{R^2} - \frac {GM}{(R+h)^2} [/tex]
then factor a ##R^2## from each term?
Yes, factor out GM/R2 from each term.
You have problem with the second term then, ##\left ( \frac{1}{1+\frac{h}{R}} \right )^2 ##
(h/R) is small, denote q=-h/R. So you have the expression ##\frac{1}{1-q}##. That should remind you on something: the sum of infinite geometric series.If you have a geometric progression 1, q, q2, q3...qn, what is the sum of the terms? What is the limit of the sum when n goes to infinity?
 
  • #25
ehild said:
Yes, factor out GM/R2 from each term.
You have problem with the second term then, ##\left ( \frac{1}{1+\frac{h}{R}} \right )^2 ##
(h/R) is small, denote q=-h/R. So you have the expression ##\frac{1}{1-q}##. That should remind you on something: the sum of infinite geometric series.If you have a geometric progression 1, q, q2, q3...qn, what is the sum of the terms? What is the limit of the sum when n goes to infinity?
I see the resemblance to the geometric series as ##h/R## would be less than one and would converge if it was a ratio in a geometric series but I don't see how that relates to the equation.
As a side note. My progression through calculus is that I am taking a test on diverging and converging infinite series and Taylor polynomials tomorrow morning.
 
  • #26
Dietrichw said:
I see the resemblance to the geometric series as ##h/R## would be less than one and would converge if it was a ratio in a geometric series but I don't see how that relates to the equation.
As a side note. My progression through calculus is that I am taking a test on diverging and converging infinite series and Taylor polynomials tomorrow morning.
OK, so you have learned how the derivative of a function is defined?
And what is the sum of the geometric series 1+q+q2+...qn?
 
  • #27
ehild said:
OK, so you have learned how the derivative of a function is defined?
And what is the sum of the geometric series 1+q+q2+...qn?

Not exactly sure how to define it but I understand what subsequent derivatives of a function represent tangentcy and concavity etc. Not something I think about normally

if q is less than 1 it would converge to [tex] \frac {1}{1-q} [/tex]
 
  • #28
Dietrichw said:
if q is less than 1 it would converge to [tex] \frac {1}{1-q} [/tex]
Well, so you can write that 1+q+q2+q3+...=1/(1-q) .
If q<<1 , you can ignore all higher powers of q and approximate 1/(1-q) by 1+q. Note it,
##\frac{1}{1-q}≈1+q##.
It is a very useful approximation.
In your problem, q = -h/R. You can use this approximation in the expression
##
\frac{GM}{R^2} - \frac {GM}{(R+h)^2}=\frac{GM}{R^2}(1-(\frac{1}{1+h/R})^2)## .
 
  • Like
Likes Vibhor
  • #29
ehild said:
Well, so you can write that 1+q+q2+q3+...=1/(1-q) .
If q<<1 , you can ignore all higher powers of q and approximate 1/(1-q) by 1+q. Note it,
##\frac{1}{1-q}≈1+q##.
It is a very useful approximation.
In your problem, q = -h/R. You can use this approximation in the expression
##
\frac{GM}{R^2} - \frac {GM}{(R+h)^2}=\frac{GM}{R^2}(1-(\frac{1}{1+h/R})^2)## .
yes, if q is really small it would be approximately 1. I don't understand the 1+q part.
 
  • #30
Dietrichw said:
yes, if q is really small it would be approximately 1. I don't understand the 1+q part.
q is not so small, that it can be fully ignored. You need the difference ##(1-(\frac{1}{1+h/R})^2)##. If you ignore h/R, you get zero for the difference between g-s at two points which are close. But it is not true that g is the same!
So keep the first power of q and ignore the others from the sum 1+q+q2+q3+...
Just to see how it works, calculate 1/(1-0.0001)-1 with 4 significant digits.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Vibhor

1. What is the Law of Universal Gravitation?

The Law of Universal Gravitation states that every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

2. Who discovered the Law of Universal Gravitation?

The Law of Universal Gravitation was first proposed by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687. He developed this law based on his observations of the motion of planets and objects on Earth.

3. What are Kepler's laws of planetary motion?

Kepler's laws of planetary motion are three laws that describe the motion of planets around the sun. The first law states that planets move in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus. The second law states that a line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times. The third law states that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

4. How do Kepler's laws relate to the Law of Universal Gravitation?

Kepler's laws of planetary motion are a consequence of the Law of Universal Gravitation. The gravitational force between the sun and a planet causes the planet to move in an elliptical orbit, and the equal areas swept out in equal times are a result of the conservation of angular momentum. The third law of planetary motion can also be derived from the Law of Universal Gravitation.

5. What is the significance of the Law of Universal Gravitation and Kepler's laws?

The Law of Universal Gravitation and Kepler's laws are fundamental laws of physics that help us understand the motion of objects in the universe. They have been used to accurately predict the motion of planets, satellites, and other celestial bodies. These laws also played a crucial role in the development of the theory of gravity and the understanding of the structure of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
411
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
969
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
876
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
888
Back
Top