Newtonian Gravitation Paradox ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of two point mass particles under Newtonian gravity, specifically addressing the apparent paradox of differing accelerations and speeds as they move towards each other. Participants explore the implications of Newton's laws and the concept of inertial frames, while also touching on related topics such as momentum and gravitational interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant posits that two particles m1 and m2, initially stationary and separated by distance x, experience different accelerations due to their differing masses, leading to a potential paradox regarding their relative speeds.
  • Another participant suggests that the accelerations should be considered with respect to an inertial frame, implying that the accelerations can be added to find the relative acceleration between the two particles.
  • A further contribution questions the definition of an inertial frame in the context of gravity, suggesting that gravity cannot be turned off and thus complicates the notion of inertial frames.
  • One participant shares a personal anecdote about being dismissed by teachers for questioning the problem, indicating a broader concern about misunderstandings in teaching physics concepts.
  • Another participant recounts a related physics problem involving the collision of Earth and a Mars-sized object, discussing the implications of momentum conservation and gravitational effects on the scenario.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the initial conditions of the problem (masses starting from rest) allow for the use of reduced mass, which some argue simplifies the analysis by effectively adding accelerations.
  • One participant corrects another's application of Newton's law, stating that the distance 'x' should be the distance to the center of mass rather than the distance between the two bodies, suggesting that this distinction resolves the paradox.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of Newton's laws in this context, particularly regarding the treatment of accelerations and the concept of inertial frames. There is no clear consensus on whether the initial analysis presents a paradox or if it is simply a misunderstanding of the physics involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the center of mass in gravitational interactions and the implications of using reduced mass in calculations. There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and assumptions related to inertial frames in the presence of gravity.

Quandarian
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Consider two point mass particles m1 m2 (with m1 different from m2) initially stationary relative to each other a distance x apart . The only force acting on them is attractive Newtonian gravity, i.e. Gm1m2/x^2 acting equally in opposite directions along the line of separation between the particles.

Using Newton's second law F= ma, the acceleration of m1 relative to m2 is Gm2/x^2; while the acceleration of m2 relative to m1 is Gm1/x^2. So they have different accelerations, and hence will always have different speeds, relative to each other. So the separation is reducing at 2 different rates for the 2 particles !

But there can only be one speed of (reducing) separation between 2 particles ?

Paradox or elementary mistake ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Quandarian said:
Using Newton's second law F= ma, the acceleration of m1 relative to m2 is Gm2/x^2; while the acceleration of m2 relative to m1 is Gm1/x^2.
No, those are accelerations with respect to an inertial frame. To get the acceleration with respect to each other you would add them.
 
Perhaps. Of course the addition may give a numerically correct answer - but we then need to consider what is "an inertial frame" ? As gravity cannot be turned off, do we then accept that all inertial frames have zero mass ?
 
Yes! yay I had the exact same question! My physics tearcher and a another random physics teacher was saying how I was insane... lol

hmm so in my mind the accelerations should be added... This can cause that not all object fall at the same speed! (well or acceleration, let just say that there's a certain distance and the time it takes them to fall towards each other with no resistance is not the same!) Hmm this is talked about in the forum as well I think... and also in the Physics I of the MIT Open lectures... (last 10 min)Ps. I'm only in high school, don't take my word...
 
Oh the experiment was done at a harvard tower.. but nothing came out...
 
But those teachers do make similar stupid mistakes. A first year student was given this problem by his Prof. He posted that question on a homework help forum (not here on PF)

The question was something like:

The Earth collided with a Mars sized object (Theia) 4.5 billion years ago that gave rise to the Moon. The impact velocity relative to Earth was about 11 km/s. Assuming that the collision was inelastic, what was the change in the momentum of the Earth.

A few more details were given. Now this was a question given to a first year student who are not physics students. They are medical students who have to take elementary physics classes.

In the question they were asked to solve a simple conservation of momentum problem in case of an elastic collision and the Prof. simply made it more interesting. But by doing so he forgot that the 11 km/s came almost 100% from the gravitational acceleration of Theia. Total momentum is conserved and Theia can be said to have approached Earth from infinity with zero momentum.

So, told the student to understand this, write it up, and teach the teacher a lesson. :approve:
 
Haha... I should teach my teacher about that! lol (His a awsome teacher)

I never really learn momentum in school though I know the basic. How did the 11km/s came about?
 
Bright Wang said:
Haha... I should teach my teacher about that! lol (His a awsome teacher)

I never really learn momentum in school though I know the basic. How did the 11km/s came about?


11 km/s is the escape velocity. At that velocity you can just escape Earth's gravity. This means that in the limitof infinite distance to Earth your velocity would just be zero. If you look at it in everse yo then see that an object tha comes from infinity would have to crash into Earth with a speed of 11 km/s at least. The limit of 11 km/s is reached when the object has a zero velocity at infinity.

In case of Theia we know that this is a good approximation. Theia formed atthe same distance as the Earth from the Sun. So Theia would not have a significant velocity relative to Earth "at infinity".
 
Then don't you have to consider the escape velocity of earth?
 
  • #10
Quandarian said:
Using Newton's second law F= ma, the acceleration of m1 relative to m2 is Gm2/x^2; while the acceleration of m2 relative to m1 is Gm1/x^2. So they have different accelerations, Paradox or elementary mistake ?...

Elememntary mistake on your part Quan. Your basis for the equation (in bold above) is wrong.

The 'x' used in your equation should be the distance to the CENTER of MASS of the system...(You are trying to use it as the distance BETWEEN the two bodies...which can only be done in the approximation).
Two massive bodies rotate around a barycenter, ( or fall toward the center of mass of the system),...and 'x' is the distance of EACH from the Barycenter...therefore you must use DIFFERENT x's in each equation ...which balances out the accelerations. .

If you don't know the barycenter (which is usually the case) you simply use a force equation which includes what is commonly called the "reduced mass"...usually called 'mu'...and must be used for the 'effective' inertial mass when applying f = ma ...the problem is solved as a one-body problem...(which is done in binary systems).

The correct formulation for 'reduced mass' to take BOTH masses into account is ...

'mu' = Reduced mass = (M + m) / (M*m)

Thus F = "mu"(a)

See here for a description of "reduced (gravitational) mass"...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html#rm
(scroll to last section at bottom first)

Or see here for a description of how to do it specifically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_mass

No paradox...just correct application of the appropriate equations. :biggrin:

Creator
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Realize that for the simple case offered by Quandarian, where the masses start from rest, the use of "reduced mass" is equivalent to simply adding the accelerations as I stated in my first post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K