Potential for particle circular motion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the effective potential for a test particle in Earth's gravitational field on a circular orbit. Two forms of effective potential are presented, with the first being correct and the second incorrect. The key difference lies in the treatment of angular velocity, where the second potential erroneously assumes that angular velocity (Ω) is constant with respect to radius (r). The correct form accounts for the dependency of Ω on r, leading to different second derivatives of the effective potentials. The clarification emphasizes the importance of accurately representing the relationship between angular velocity and radius in gravitational contexts.
MartinK
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone!

I have a small question that bothers me. Consider a test particle in the Earths gravitational field on circullar obrit. Speciffic effective potential is
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(1)} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{l^2}{m^2} \frac{1}{r^2} - \frac{GM}{r},<br /> \nonumber<br /> \end{equation}<br />
where
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> l = m r^2 \Omega = {\rm const.}, \nonumber<br /> \end{equation}<br />
because $\theta$ is cyclic coordinate. But we have partice in circular orbit, so $\Omega = $const. too, and we can write
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(2)} = \frac{1}{2} \Omega^2 r^2 - \frac{GM}{r}.\nonumber<br /> \end{equation}<br />
Now we have correct form:
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \frac{ \partial^2 \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(1)}}{\partial r^2} = \frac{3 l^2}{m^2 r^4} - \frac{GM}{r} = 3 \Omega^2 - \frac{2GM}{r^3}.\nonumber<br /> \end{equation}<br />
and incoorect form
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \frac{ \partial^2 \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(2)}}{\partial r^2} = \Omega^2 - \frac{2GM}{r^3}.\nonumber<br /> \end{equation}<br />

Why is there a difference between <br /> $ \partial^2 \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(1)} / \partial r^2, $ and $\partial^2 \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(2)} / \partial r^2, $<br />?

Thanks for any replies, have a nice day with physics :-)
Martin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I found the answer with the help of my friends.
Second potential is wrong, because $\Omega$ is constant only with time - it depends on $r$.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top