Newton's derivation of Kepler's laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter inkyvoyd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Laws
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on reconstructing Newton's derivation of Kepler's laws using calculus. The participant is exploring how to connect Newton's second law and gravitational law to Kepler's first law, particularly the elliptical nature of orbits. They seek hints on how to start, especially regarding the initial conditions necessary for determining the elliptical path. Suggestions include using polar integration and differential equations to relate the variables involved in the motion. The participant aims to understand the relationships between the laws without directly seeking solutions, emphasizing the importance of the thought process in learning.
inkyvoyd
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Introduction
This is not a homework or coursework question (if it were it would be of the project type), and I am looking for hints not spoilers.
Hi,
I recently passed by kepler's laws again in a science class (this time Earth science), and am concurrently taking calculus in my math class.

I realized that my current knowledge of calculus should let me be able to re-find kepler's laws (or show equivalence to Newton's laws) - for kepler's first law, I should be able to prove (with Newton's second law) that the elliptical orbit described is consistent. For his second law, I should be able to use polar integration to complete the consistency proof. As for the third, I haven't had any ideas, but my problems are really with where to start.

Homework Statement


I contacted my math teacher with this question, and we had a short discussion, with my teacher suggesting I get data of planetary locations over time. I searched for these, with no avail (I am not looking for conclusions - which are all I could seemingly find). I'm trying to understand kepler's first law and how it relates to Newton's laws - but I do realize some problems. Since initial velocity (and position) must be known in order to determine the elliptical path, one must have these accounted for - and I have no idea how to do that.

I need hints, and if possible, data.
I do not want a result, or work and a result, because I want to in a sense "repioneer" this - the thinking that is involved with creating an idea previously unknown to one differs from that of learning about an idea.

tl;dr:I am trying to reconstruct Newton's derivation of Kepler's laws, and am stuck on how to translate Newton's laws into kepler's first law. I need hints, and if possible, data.

Homework Equations


Newton's second law: f=ma
Newton's gravitational law:f=g(m_1m_2)/(r^2)
kepler's 3 laws


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm not sure where to start.
I know that once I get an idea I will break motion into x and y-axis (put in parametric form), and try to convert to polar form as well. I am guessing I will encounter simple differential equations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The main problem relating Kepler's first law (elliptical orbits) to Newton's equations is that Kepler's law says nothing about time.
You could try:
- obtain a differential equation r, theta, t from Newton's laws;
- assume the relationship between r and theta implied by Kepler I, and on the basis of that obtain expressions for r and its time derivatives in terms of theta and its time derivatives;
- substitute in your ODE to eliminate references to r and show that appropriate assignments of the constants satisfy the equation.
 
haruspex said:
The main problem relating Kepler's first law (elliptical orbits) to Newton's equations is that Kepler's law says nothing about time.
You could try:
- obtain a differential equation r, theta, t from Newton's laws;
- assume the relationship between r and theta implied by Kepler I, and on the basis of that obtain expressions for r and its time derivatives in terms of theta and its time derivatives;
- substitute in your ODE to eliminate references to r and show that appropriate assignments of the constants satisfy the equation.
I see - but since Kepler's second and third laws are about orbital time and velocity, I'm guessing I would have to incorporate all three simultaneously?
 
F = GMm/r^2 = mv^2/r ... T = 2 x Pi x r / v and therefor v = 2 x Pi x r / T

sub for v in mv^2/r ( centrepital force ) and simplify to get T^2/r^3 = Constant

which holds for all the planets around the sun. That is Kepler's 3rd law.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top