Planetary orbits - the 2-body problem

In summary, the two-body problem in deriving the planetary orbit equation involves two particles with masses ##m_1## and ##m_2## interacting through an inter-particle potential ##V##. The equations of motion for each particle can be simplified by considering the motion of the center of mass (CoM) and a virtual particle of reduced mass. This results in uncoupled equations for the CoM and the virtual particle, making the system easier to solve. The distance between the two masses in the orbit equation is the distance between the CoM and one of the masses, not the distance between the two masses themselves. This can lead to different perspectives on which body is orbiting the other, but in reality the Sun and Earth are
  • #1
dyn
773
61
Hi

I am confused about certain aspects of deriving the planetary orbit equation by considering it as 2-body problem. I will ask my first question now before i get to my other questions. In the David Tong notes on "Dynamics & Relativity" he states that a particle in central force potential obeys
ma = -∇ V(r)
He then states that this can be interpreted as 2 particles with separation r interacting through the inter-particle potential V. The origin r = 0 is the centre of mass of the 2 particles. Also m is the reduced mass of the 2 particles.
My question is why is r=0 the centre of mass position ? The vector r starts at one mass and ends at the other one so surely r = 0 corresponds to the position of one of the masses ? Also when calculating gravitational potentials the origin r=0 always seems to be the position of the particle ( or centre of a spherical mass)

Thanks
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, D. Tong is assuming that some important details are known. You have two particles of masses ##m_1, m_2## and coordinate vectors describing their instantaneous position in the lab frame ##\bf{r_1}(t), \bf{r_2}(t)##. The 2-body electrostatic/gravitostatic potential is ##V(\vert \bf{r}_1 - \bf{r}_2\vert)##.
Then, in order to solve the coupled system of 6 ODEs from Newton's second law applied for each particle, you need to make the so-called "separation of motion" into the motion of the CoM and the motion of a virtual particle of reduced mass around the CoM. They, for simplicity, because the CoM is an IRF, you shift the description from the lab system to the CoM system and the originally coupled system of 6 ODEs transforms to uncoupled ODEs.

More to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem#Reduction_to_two_independent,_one-body_problems (off the top of my head I cannot pinpoint a textbook of classical mechanics providing all the possible details and calculations).

Later Edit: down below one finds a full treatment by the user vanhees71, so no need to look it up in a textbook of classical mechanics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale and vanhees71
  • #3
I have looked at those wikipedia notes and they are similar to mine. I don't understand how r = 0 is the position of the COM.
The equation is μ##\ddot{r}## = F(r) where F is gravitational force between the 2 masses. For this force r=0 is at the position of one of the masses or centre of it if it is a sphere ; r=0 is not the position of the centre of mass. The variable r is the separation of the 2 masses ; this is not related to the COM
 
  • #4
When ##r=0##, the separation of the masses is ##0##, which means the masses are at the same place, namely the common COM.

In an orbital scenario ##r=0## never happens. It only happens in a direct collision.
 
  • #5
It's a mathematical trick, basically. It turns out that the path of mass ##m_1## in a two body system is the same as a mass ##m_1m_2/(m_1+m_2)## in orbit around a mass ##m_1+m_2## pinned (don't ask what it's pinned to) at the center of mass. That's a much easier system to handle mathematically.

I haven't looked at Tong's notes, but the Wiki article linked above is proving that result.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and pbuk
  • #6
I think I'm getting confused between 2 real masses and the "imaginary" mass with reduced mass. When i arrive at the orbit equation

r = r0 / ( 1 + εcosθ )

where ε is the eccentricity of the orbit ; i am assuming r is the distance from the COM located at the focus of the ellipse to one of the masses ? This means that in the general case where the COM is not located at one of the masses ; the r in the orbit equation is not the distance between the 2 masses . Is that correct ?
 
  • #7
dyn said:
the r in the orbit equation is not the distance between the 2 masses . Is that correct ?
That is correct: the r in the orbit equation for m1 is the distance between m1 and the CoM.

Edit: this is not correct for the reduced mass method as noted by the OP below o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #8
I just found in the David Morin Classical Mechanics book that the r in the orbit equation using reduced mass is the distance between the 2 masses. To find the distance between each mass and the COM use (m2/M)r for mass m1 and (m1/M)r for mass m2 where M=m1+m2
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #9
So does that clear it up for you?
 
  • #10
I have one last question. Using the reduced mass equation, someone on the Earth could consider that the Sun is orbiting around the Earth while someone "on" the Sun could consider that the Earth is orbiting around the Sun ; is that argument valid ? If so , why is it considered that the Earth orbits the Sun ? Is it because the COM of the Earth-Sun system is inside the Sun ?
 
  • #11
Well if you have to choose one or the other, that would certainly make sense. The sun outmasses the Earth by about 333,000 so it will be 279 miles from the sun center (is that right?).
 
  • #12
dyn said:
I have one last question. Using the reduced mass equation, someone on the Earth could consider that the Sun is orbiting around the Earth while someone "on" the Sun could consider that the Earth is orbiting around the Sun ; is that argument valid ? If so , why is it considered that the Earth orbits the Sun ? Is it because the COM of the Earth-Sun system is inside the Sun ?
In the simplest model of the solar system the Sun is fixed at the centre. At the next level of complexity, the Sun moves about by approximately its diameter, from the influence of the other planets, most significantly Jupiter.

In any case, in reality the Sun-Earth is not an isolated two_body problem.

Moreover, the alternative model is that the Sun orbits the Earth daily, not annually, due to the rotation of the Earth.
 
  • Like
Likes dyn, hutchphd and sophiecentaur
  • #13
Let's solve the equations. That's easier than a lot of text!

The equations of motion for the Sun (position ##\vec{x}_1##) and the Planet (position ##\vec{x}_2##) are
$$
\begin{split}
m_1 \ddot{\vec{x}}_1 &=-\frac{G m_1 m_2}{|\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2|^3}(\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2),\\
m_2 \ddot{\vec{x}}_2 &=-\frac{G m_1 m_2}{|\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2|^3}(\vec{x}_2-\vec{x}_1)
\end{split}$$
Adding both equations leads to
$$M \ddot{\vec{R}}=0$$
with
$$\vec{R}=\frac{1}{M} (m_1 \vec{x}_1+m_2 \vec{x}_2), \quad M=m_1+m_2.$$
Multiplying the 2nd EoM. with ##m_1/M## and the 1st with ##m_2/M## and subtracting both equations leads to
$$\mu \ddot{\vec{r}}=-\frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^3} \vec{r},$$
where
$$\mu=\frac{m_1 m_2}{M}, \quad \vec{r}=\vec{r}_2-\vec{r}_1.$$
So we have reduced the equation of motion for the two-body problem to the equation of motion for its center of mass, which moves with constant velocity, and the equation of motion for a quasiparticle with mass ##\mu## ("reduced mass") with a force given by the gravitational interaction between Sun and planet. We can choose our inertial reference frame such that it stays at rest and thus ##\vec{R}=\vec{0}=\text{const}## is the origin of this new inertial reference frame.

For the relative motion you can use the other conservation laws. Since the force is a central force, angular momentum is conserved, i.e.,
$$\vec{L}=\mu \vec{r} \times \dot{\vec{r}}=\text{const}$$
and we can choose the reference frame such that ##\vec{L}=L\vec{e}_3##. Then the motion is entirely in the ##x_1##-##x_2## plane. The conservation of angular momentum is also Kepler's 2nd Law according to which the ##\vec{r}## swipes out equal areas in equal times.

Further since the force has a time-independent potential
$$V(r)=-\frac{G m_1 m_2}{r}$$
the energy is conserved.
$$E=\frac{\mu}{2} \dot{\vec{r}}^2-\frac{G m_1 m_2}{r}=\text{const}.$$
Now we introduce polar coordinates
$$\vec{r}=r \begin{pmatrix} \cos \varphi \\ \sin \varphi \end{pmatrix}$$
leading to
$$\dot{\vec{r}}^2=\dot{r}^2 + r^2 \dot{\varphi}^2$$
and
$$L=\mu (x_1 \dot{x}_2-x_2 \dot{x}_1)=\mu r^2 \dot{\varphi}=\text{const}$$
Then the energy-conservation equation reads
$$E=\frac{\mu}{2} \dot{r}^2 + \frac{L^2}{2 \mu r^2} - \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r}.$$
That's the equation of motion for a one-dimensional problem of a particle with mass ##\mu## moving in an effective potential with
$$V_{\text{eff}}=\frac{L^2}{2 \mu r^2} - \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r}.$$
To find the shape of the orbit we note that
$$\dot{r}=r'(\varphi) \dot{\varphi}=\frac{L}{\mu r^2} r'(\varphi)=-\frac{L}{\mu} \left (\frac{1}{r} \right)',$$
where a prime now means a derivative wrt. ##\varphi##. Introducing ##s=1/r## the energy-conservation equation reads
$$E=\frac{L^2}{2 \mu}(s^{\prime 2}+s^2)-G m_1 m_2 s.$$
To solve this differential equation, it's easier to first take another derivative wrt. ##\varphi##, giving
$$s' [\frac{L^2}{\mu} (s''+s)-G m_1 m_2]=0.$$
Now either ##s'=0##, which means ##s=1/r=\text{const}##, in which case the orbit is a circle, or
$$s''+s=\frac{G \mu m_1 m_2}{L^2}.$$
The general solution of this equation obviously is
$$s=\frac{G \mu m_1 m_2}{L^2} + C \cos(\varphi+\varphi_0),$$
where ##C## and ##\varphi## are integration constants. We can choose our coordinate system such that ##s## becomes maximal (##r## minimal) for ##\varphi=0##, i.e., we can set ##\varphi_0=0##, which corresponds to the usual convention of the astronomers to count the angle relative to the perihelion (closest distance between planet and Sun).

Further ##s'=-C \sin \varphi## and thus using once more the energy-conservation equation above:
$$C=\sqrt{1+\frac{2 \mu E}{L^2}} \frac{G \mu m_1 m_2}{L^2}.$$
Finally the orbit reads
$$r=\frac{1}{s} = \frac{L^2}{G \mu m_1 m_2} \, \frac{1}{1+ \epsilon \cos \varphi}$$
with
$$\epsilon=\sqrt{1+\frac{2 \mu E}{L^2}}.$$
Obviously the orbit is a conic section. The bound orbits are obviously for ##E<0##, i.e., ##0 \leq \epsilon<1##, ellipses. This is Kepler's 1st Law: Both the Sun and the planet are on elliptic orbits with the center of mass as one of its foci.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Leo Liu, JD_PM, alan123hk and 6 others
  • #14
Thanks for all your replies
 
  • #15
dyn said:
I think I'm getting confused between 2 real masses and the "imaginary" mass with reduced mass. When i arrive at the orbit equation

r = r0 / ( 1 + εcosθ )

where ε is the eccentricity of the orbit ; i am assuming r is the distance from the COM located at the focus of the ellipse to one of the masses ? This means that in the general case where the COM is not located at one of the masses ; the r in the orbit equation is not the distance between the 2 masses . Is that correct ?
The equation of the elliptical orbit from the closest focus to the central body

$$r (\theta) = \dfrac {a (1- \varepsilon ^ 2)} {1+ \varepsilon \cos \theta}$$

And from the other focus

$$r (\theta) = \dfrac {a (1- \varepsilon ^ 2)} {1- \varepsilon \cos \theta}$$

Where a is the semi-major axis of the orbit

If ##r_{0} = a (1- \varepsilon ^ 2)##

Then ##r_0## is called a "straight half width", it takes relevance when in parabolic trajectories the semi-major axis ##a## is infinite, then ##r_0## is taken, to avoid the inconvenience.

Each mass orbits the CoM with an elliptical trajectory synchronous with the other mass, both have the periapsis at the same moment and the apoapsid at the same moment, as both trajectories have the same eccentricity and as the line that joins the masses contains the focus, the ##r_0## of each curve can be added obtaining the distance between masses. Thus ##r## represents in the joint orbit represents the distance between the two masses.

Binary_system_orbit_q=3_e=0.5.gif

source: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excentricidad_orbital

dyn said:
This means that in the general case where the COM is not located at one of the masses ; the r in the orbit equation is not the distance between the 2 masses . Is that correct ?
It is precisely always the distance between the two masses.

But as it is preferable than doing as many on a reference system that is not rotating on a CoM, (it is preferred didactically static), when in ##M = m_1 + m_2## we have that ##m_1 >> m_2## then the CoM is very close to the center from ##m_1##, then ##r_1## is approximated to ##0## without causing major errors, hence the mass ##m_2## has an elliptical orbit, whose focus is on the CoM which in this case will be the center of ##m_1## and the distance ##r## will be the radial distance based on that system centered on ##m_1##
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK, vanhees71, Delta2 and 1 other person
  • #16
Richard R Richard said:
It is precisely always the distance between the two masses.

What? Wrong. Already answered.
 
  • #17
hutchphd said:
What? Wrong. Already answered.
Do you think my answer is different from yours?
 
  • #18
If it id the same why reiterate? Finis.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #19
hutchphd said:
If it id the same why reiterate? Finis.
I repeat it, because, I think that the objective of a forum
is to seek different points of view on the same subject.
Do you agree or disagree with what I have written?
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #20
hutchphd said:
What? Wrong. Already answered.
Why? Of course ##\vec{r}=\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2## and thus ##r=|\vec{r}|## is the distance of the Sun to the planet.
 
  • Like
Likes Richard R Richard
  • #21
Richard R Richard said:
Do you agree or disagree with what I have written?
Remind me not to (try to) do Physics past my bedtime. Apologies.
Very nice graphics!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes dyn, Richard R Richard and vanhees71
  • #22
The diagram is #15 is very helpful but why is the eccentricity of both masses the same ?
 
  • #23
vanhees71 said:
$$\vec{R}=\frac{1}{M} (m_1 \vec{x}_1+m_2 \vec{x}_2), \quad M=m_1+m_2.$$
Multiplying the 2nd EoM. with ##m_1/M## and the 1st with ##m_2/M## and subtracting both equations leads to
$$\mu \ddot{\vec{r}}=-\frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^3} \vec{r},$$
where
$$\mu=\frac{m_1 m_2}{M}, \quad \vec{r}=\vec{r}_2-\vec{r}_1.$$
So we have reduced the equation of motion for the two-body problem to the equation of motion for its center of mass, which moves with constant velocity, and the equation of motion for a quasiparticle with mass ##\mu## ("reduced mass") with a force given by the gravitational interaction between Sun and planet. We can choose our inertial reference frame such that it stays at rest and thus ##\vec{R}=\vec{0}=\text{const}## is the origin of this new inertial reference frame.
So $$\vec{x_1}=-\frac {m_2} {m_1} \vec{x_2}$$ in the ##\vec R=0## coordinate system
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and dyn
  • #24
The above equation says that the the position vector of mass 1 relative to the COM is proportional to the vector of mass 2 relative to the COM but with a negative sign. Is that statement enough to prove that the 2 eccentricities are the same ?
 
  • #25
dyn said:
The diagram is #15 is very helpful but why is the eccentricity of both masses the same ?
I understand that yes, they necessarily have to have the same eccentricity.

See what happens to the apoapsid and the periasid

Starting from the orbit of mass 1 we know that

$$ e = \dfrac {r_ {a_1} -r_ {p_1}} {r_ {a_1} + r_ {p_1}} $$ Ec1

If it is true the equation that @hutchphd gives you ## \vec {x_1} = - \frac {m_2} {m_1} \vec {x_2} ##

$$ r_ {a_1} = - \dfrac {m_2} {m_1} r_ {a_2} $$

And

$$ r_ {p_1} = - \dfrac {m_2} {m_1} r_ {p_2} $$

replacing in Ec1

$$ e_1 = \dfrac {- \dfrac {m_2} {m_1} r_ {a_2} - (- \dfrac {m_2} {m_1} r_ {a_2})} {- \dfrac {m_2} {m_1} r_ {a_2 } + (- \dfrac {m_2} {m_1} r_ {a_2})} $$

$$ e_1 = \dfrac {\cancel {- \dfrac {m_2} {m_1}}} {\cancel {- \dfrac {m_2} {m_1}}} \dfrac {r_ {a_2} -r_ {p_2}} { r_ {a_2} + r_ {p_2}} $$

$$ e_1 = \dfrac {r_ {a_2} -r_ {p_2}} {r_ {a_2} + r_ {p_2}} = e_2 $$

$$ e_1 = e_2 = e $$
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and dyn
  • #26
Thank you
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #27
Can i just check that i understand the following points correctly ; i am hoping for 3 corrects !

1 - when using the reduced mass i obtain the orbit equation which is an ellipse. So the Earth orbits the Sun in an ellipse taking the Sun as fixed. Can i also take the Earth as fixed and say that the Sun orbits the Earth in an ellipse which is exactly the same size and shape as the previous ellipse. Is that correct ?

2 - Angular momentum is conserved because the force is central ; but is it correct to state that the angular momentum of the Sun about the COM is not equal to the angular momentum of the Earth about the COM ?

3 - Mechanical energy is conserved because the force is conservative ; but is it correct to state that the energy of the Sun is not equal to the energy of the Earth
 
  • #28
ad 1) No, when working with the reduced mass you describe the Sun and the Earth as two bodies with finite mass, and describe the motion in terms of the center of mass position, which moves with constant velocity, such that you can choose an inertial reference frame where this center of mass position stays at rest in the origin of the coordinate system, and an equation of motion for the relative position ##\vec{r}=\vec{r}_{\text{E}}-\vec{r}_{\text{S}}##. The bound solutions are ellipses (or as a special case circles).

What does this mean for the motion of the Earth and Sun? From ##(\vec{R}=m_E \vec{r}_{E} + m_S \vec{r}_S)/(m_E+m_S)=0## and ##\vec{r}=\vec{r}_E-\vec{r}## you get
$$\vec{r}_E=\frac{m_S}{m_S+m_E} \vec{r}, \quad \vec{r}_S=-\frac{m_E}{m_S+m_E} \vec{r},$$
i.e., the Earth and the Sun move on ellipses with one of its foci being the center of mass (i.e., the origin of our inertial reference frame).

Since ##m_{E} \ll m_S## you can approximate this as
$$\vec{r}_S \simeq 0, \quad \vec{r}_E \simeq \vec{r},$$
which is Kepler's 1st law in its original form: The Earth's orbit is an ellipse with the Sun in one of its foci.

ad 2) The total angular momentum is constant, because the gravitational interaction force is a central force, i.e.,
$$\vec{L}=m_E \vec{r}_E \times \dot{\vec{r}}_E+m_E \vec{r}_S \times \dot{\vec{r}}_S=\text{const}.$$
In our center-of-mass frame this reads
$$\vec{L}=\frac{m_E m_S}{m_E+m_S} \vec{r} \times \dot{\vec{r}}=\mu \vec{r} \times \dot{\vec{r}}.$$
The angular momenta of Earth and Sun are of course not equal
$$\vec{L}_E=m_E \vec{r}_E \times \dot{\vec{r}}_E = \frac{m_S}{m_E+m_S} \vec{L}, \quad \vec{L}_S = m_S \vec{r}_S \times \dot{\vec{r}}_S=\frac{m_E}{m_E+m_S} \vec{L}.$$

ad 3) I guess you mean the kinetic energy of Earth and Sun. They are
$$T_E=\frac{m_E}{2} \dot{\vec{r}}_E^2=\frac{\mu}{2} \frac{m_S}{m_E+m_S} \dot{\vec{r}}^2, \quad T_S=\frac{m_S}{2} \dot{\vec{r}}_S^2=\frac{\mu}{2} \frac{m_E}{m_E+m_S} \dot{\vec{r}}^2.$$
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi, dextercioby and Richard R Richard
  • #29
dyn said:
Can i just check that i understand the following points correctly ; i am hoping for 3 corrects !

1 - when using the reduced mass i obtain the orbit equation which is an ellipse. So the Earth orbits the Sun in an ellipse taking the Sun as fixed. Can i also take the Earth as fixed and say that the Sun orbits the Earth in an ellipse which is exactly the same size and shape as the previous ellipse. Is that correct ?

2 - Angular momentum is conserved because the force is central ; but is it correct to state that the angular momentum of the Sun about the COM is not equal to the angular momentum of the Earth about the COM ?

3 - Mechanical energy is conserved because the force is conservative ; but is it correct to state that the energy of the Sun is not equal to the energy of the Earth
Thank you.

As regards my 1st question , the Gregory book on CM states "in the 2-body problem the motion of P1 relative to P2 is the same as if P2 were held fixed and P1had the reduced mass μ instead of its actual mass" Now 1 and 2 can refer to the Sun and Earth or vice versa which is why my question referred to taking the Sun as fixed and then the Earth as fixed ; not rotating around the COM

As for Q3 i was referring to the total mechanical energy . ie. KE+PE
 
  • #30
As regards Q2 is the angular momenta of the Sun and the Earth individually constant or is it only their sum that is constant ?
 
  • #31
dyn said:
Thank you.

As regards my 1st question , the Gregory book on CM states "in the 2-body problem the motion of P1 relative to P2 is the same as if P2 were held fixed and P1had the reduced mass μ instead of its actual mass" Now 1 and 2 can refer to the Sun and Earth or vice versa which is why my question referred to taking the Sun as fixed and then the Earth as fixed ; not rotating around the COM

As for Q3 i was referring to the total mechanical energy . ie. KE+PE
It's a bit strangely formulated, but obviously your book refers to the relative motion, i.e.,
$$\mu \dot{\vec{r}}=-G m_S m_E \frac{\vec{r}}{r^3}, \quad \vec{r}=\vec{r}_E-\vec{r}_S.$$
The details of the kinematics I have given above.

The total mechanical energy is the energy of both Earth and Sun together. It doesn't make sense to attribute "total energy" to the one or the other body, because the potential is an interaction potential, i.e., a two-body quantity.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #32
vanhees71 said:
It's a bit strangely formulated, but obviously your book refers to the relative motion, i.e.,
$$\mu \dot{\vec{r}}=-G m_S m_E \frac{\vec{r}}{r^3}, \quad \vec{r}=\vec{r}_E-\vec{r}_S.$$
The details of the kinematics I have given above.

The total mechanical energy is the energy of both Earth and Sun together. It doesn't make sense to attribute "total energy" to the one or the other body, because the potential is an interaction potential, i.e., a two-body quantity.
To calculate the escape velocity of a mass from the Earth , we require that the total energy of the mass , ie KE+PE be equal to zero. Is that not a similar situation where we attribute total energy to one body in an interaction potential ?
 
  • #33
Here you approximate the situation by treating the Earth simply by an external gravitational field, neglecting the motion of the Earth due to its interaction with the object, which is of course justified, because the mass of the Earth is very much larger than that of the object. The same holds for the cestial mechanics Kepler problem in our solar system, because all planets' masses are very much smaller than that of the Sun.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #34
If you are doing a problem then it's useful to remember that you may convert one-body equations to two-body equations by the transformation ##G \mapsto G' = \left(1 + \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right)G##
 
  • #35
etotheipi said:
If you are doing a problem then it's useful to remember that you may convert one-body equations to two-body equations by the transformation ##G \mapsto G' = \left(1 + \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right)G##
Stop procrastinating!
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
<h2>1. What is the 2-body problem in planetary orbits?</h2><p>The 2-body problem in planetary orbits refers to the mathematical challenge of predicting the motion of two celestial bodies, such as a planet and its orbiting moon, under the influence of their mutual gravitational attraction. It is a simplified model that assumes the two bodies are the only objects in the universe and that their masses are concentrated at a single point.</p><h2>2. How is the 2-body problem solved?</h2><p>The 2-body problem is solved using mathematical equations, such as Newton's laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation. These equations allow scientists to calculate the positions and velocities of the two bodies at any given time, and to predict their future positions and movements.</p><h2>3. What factors affect the stability of planetary orbits?</h2><p>The stability of planetary orbits is affected by several factors, including the masses and distances of the two bodies, the shape of their orbits, and the presence of other celestial bodies. In some cases, the gravitational pull of other nearby objects can cause the orbit to become unstable and result in collisions or ejections from the system.</p><h2>4. Can the 2-body problem be applied to real-world planetary systems?</h2><p>While the 2-body problem is a simplified model, it can be applied to real-world planetary systems with some limitations. For example, the orbits of planets in our solar system can be approximated using the 2-body problem, but the influence of other planets and objects must also be taken into account for more accurate predictions.</p><h2>5. How has the study of the 2-body problem contributed to our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>The study of the 2-body problem has contributed greatly to our understanding of the universe, particularly in the fields of physics and astronomy. It has allowed scientists to make accurate predictions about the movements of celestial bodies and has helped us to better understand the laws of gravity and motion. Additionally, the 2-body problem has led to the development of more complex models and theories that can be applied to a wider range of systems in the universe.</p>

1. What is the 2-body problem in planetary orbits?

The 2-body problem in planetary orbits refers to the mathematical challenge of predicting the motion of two celestial bodies, such as a planet and its orbiting moon, under the influence of their mutual gravitational attraction. It is a simplified model that assumes the two bodies are the only objects in the universe and that their masses are concentrated at a single point.

2. How is the 2-body problem solved?

The 2-body problem is solved using mathematical equations, such as Newton's laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation. These equations allow scientists to calculate the positions and velocities of the two bodies at any given time, and to predict their future positions and movements.

3. What factors affect the stability of planetary orbits?

The stability of planetary orbits is affected by several factors, including the masses and distances of the two bodies, the shape of their orbits, and the presence of other celestial bodies. In some cases, the gravitational pull of other nearby objects can cause the orbit to become unstable and result in collisions or ejections from the system.

4. Can the 2-body problem be applied to real-world planetary systems?

While the 2-body problem is a simplified model, it can be applied to real-world planetary systems with some limitations. For example, the orbits of planets in our solar system can be approximated using the 2-body problem, but the influence of other planets and objects must also be taken into account for more accurate predictions.

5. How has the study of the 2-body problem contributed to our understanding of the universe?

The study of the 2-body problem has contributed greatly to our understanding of the universe, particularly in the fields of physics and astronomy. It has allowed scientists to make accurate predictions about the movements of celestial bodies and has helped us to better understand the laws of gravity and motion. Additionally, the 2-body problem has led to the development of more complex models and theories that can be applied to a wider range of systems in the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
11
Views
660
  • Classical Physics
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
782
Replies
86
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
677
Replies
62
Views
5K
Back
Top