Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Missing something obvious in this derivation

  1. Nov 10, 2015 #1
    Hi,

    I've attached a file displaying a derivation to make the kinetic energy of a two-body problem into a kinetic energy only involving the reduced mass. When plugging 8.3 into 8.1, I just don't quite see how this derivation makes sense. Shouldn't there be a $$ \mu^2$$ term? Since when squaring the absolute value of r1, aren't the mass terms also squared? If I'm not mistaken, it simply looks like the mass terms are not squared when plugging in 8.3 into 8.1.

    I feel like I'm missing something painfully obvious here, so any help is appreciated!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 10, 2015 #2

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Isn't it just a matter of dimensions? Why would you expect mass2 to come into the energy formula?
     
  4. Nov 10, 2015 #2

    fzero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    There's a factor of ##m_1+m_2## that cancels against one of the factors in the denominator.
     
  5. Nov 10, 2015 #3

    andrewkirk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Yes, they are squared. But if you make the substitutions and work through the algebra, you just end up with ##\frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+m_2}##
     
  6. Nov 10, 2015 #4
    I agree with fzero.
     
  7. Nov 11, 2015 #5
    Right. Just put it down on paper, instead of imagining what will happen, and it comes out very easily.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Missing something obvious in this derivation
  1. Something weird (Replies: 7)

  2. Reaction missing (Replies: 10)

Loading...