I Maximum impact parameter given effective potential

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding why higher particle energies lead to capture in gravitational interactions, contrary to the intuition that lower energies would result in capture due to insufficient energy to escape. The key point is that the condition for capture is defined by the effective potential, where the maximum effective potential must be less than or equal to the particle's energy (V_eff^max ≤ E). This relationship indicates that as energy increases, the impact parameter decreases, resulting in a smaller cross-section for capture. Additionally, higher energy correlates with increased angular momentum, which further influences the dynamics of capture. The explanation clarifies the misconception about energy and gravitational capture in classical mechanics.
stephen8686
Messages
42
Reaction score
5
This problem is from David Morin's classical mechanics textbook:
problem.PNG

I am having trouble with Part b. Here is the textbook's answer:
andswe.PNG


I do not understand why large particle energies lead to capture. I would think that smaller energies would lead to capture because the particle wouldn't have enough energy to escape the gravitational potential, whereas large energy particles could woosh past. If someone could explain why my intuition is wrong, that would be very helpful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you make out that larger energies lead to capture?
 
PeroK said:
How do you make out that larger energies lead to capture?
That's what the answer says, "The condition for capture is therefore ##V_{eff}^{max}\leq E## " That is the part of the answer that I don't understand
 
stephen8686 said:
That's what the answer says, "The condition for capture is therefore ##V_{eff}^{max}\leq E## " That is the part of the answer that I don't understand
That condition resolves into a smaller impact parameter and smaller cross section for capture for greater energy.
 
stephen8686 said:
That's what the answer says, "The condition for capture is therefore ##V_{eff}^{max}\leq E## " That is the part of the answer that I don't understand
That equation in itself is about the relationship between angular momentum and energy. But, angular momentum increases with energy if other factors are held constant, so it doesn't say what you are thinking it says.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top