Mechanical energy for planet in elliptical orbit around star

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mechanical energy of a planet in an elliptical orbit around a star, specifically distinguishing between the mechanical energy of the planet alone and that of the star-planet system. It is noted that while the planet's kinetic energy (KE) increases when it is farther from the star, its potential energy (PE) decreases, and vice versa when it is closer. The confusion arises over whether the "mechanical energy of just the planet" should include gravitational potential energy, leading to differing answers in a multiple-choice format. Clarification suggests that the planet's mechanical energy is often interpreted as solely its kinetic energy, while the star-planet system's energy includes both kinetic and gravitational potential energy. The conversation emphasizes the importance of carefully interpreting problem statements to avoid ambiguity in physics problems.
JessicaHelena
Messages
188
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



A planet is in an elliptical orbit around a star. Which of the following best represents the mechanical energy E_planet of just the planet and the mechanical energy Es_tar-planet of the star-planet system as functions of time for one complete orbit?

IMG_9743.jpg
IMG_9744.jpg


Homework Equations



Ei = Ef (?)

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
The planet has both PE and KE, and when it is further away from the star, it is traveling much faster so KE goes up while PE goes down due to increased r. And when it's near the star, r increased so PE goes up but KE decreases due to slower speed. But the sum of PE and KE should be equal anytime.

For star-planet, the PE is -GmM/r, so I chose the answer A, but apparently the answer is C and I'm having a hard time understanding why.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9743.jpg
    IMG_9743.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 4,146
  • IMG_9744.jpg
    IMG_9744.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 3,911
Physics news on Phys.org
JessicaHelena said:
For star-planet, the PE is -GmM/r, so I chose the answer A, but apparently the answer is C and I'm having a hard time understanding why.
Like you, I would have chosen answer A, including both the planet's kinetic and gravitational potential energy in the planet's "total mechanical energy".

However, it appears that "mechanical energy of just the planet" is intended not to include any gravitational potential energy based on the planet's position in the gravitational field of the star.

The "mechanical energy of the star-planet system" does include the gravitational potential energy (-GmM/r) just as you indicate along with their kinetic energies. The total is constant and negative, as indicated by both A and C.
 
@jbriggs444 — then when the problem says "ME of just the planet", should I normally think of simply the KE? Does these kinds of things apply to other situations?
 
JessicaHelena said:
@jbriggs444 — then when the problem says "ME of just the planet", should I normally think of simply the KE? Does these kinds of things apply to other situations?
In my view, the phrasing was ambiguous. So there is no hard and fast rule to cling to.

A useful clue might have been the fact that in answer A, the total mechanical energy of the planet was indicated as constant and positive. But with the conventional choice of zero potential energy at infinity, the energy should have been constant and negative.

That is a useful general approach to successful multiple choice problem solving -- if a particular interpretation of a problem makes all of the answers wrong, try a different interpretation.
 
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 .
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