Potential for particle circular motion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the effective potential of a test particle in circular motion within Earth's gravitational field. Two forms of the effective potential are presented: \(\widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(1)}\) and \(\widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(2)}\). The key conclusion is that the second potential is incorrect because it assumes \(\Omega\) is constant, while it actually varies with radius \(r\). This distinction is crucial for accurately modeling circular orbits in gravitational fields.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational potential energy and forces
  • Familiarity with circular motion dynamics
  • Knowledge of effective potential in classical mechanics
  • Basic calculus, specifically partial derivatives
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of effective potential in gravitational fields
  • Learn about the role of angular momentum in circular orbits
  • Explore the relationship between angular velocity \(\Omega\) and radius \(r\)
  • Investigate the implications of varying effective potentials in orbital mechanics
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and researchers interested in classical mechanics, particularly those focusing on gravitational systems and orbital dynamics.

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
[tex] \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}[/tex]
where
[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> l = m r^2 \Omega = {\rm const.}, \nonumber<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]
because [tex]$\theta$[/tex] is cyclic coordinate. But we have partice in circular orbit, so [tex]$\Omega = $[/tex]const. too, and we can write
[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(2)} = \frac{1}{2} \Omega^2 r^2 - \frac{GM}{r}.\nonumber<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]
Now we have correct form:
[tex] \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}[/tex]
and incoorect form
[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> \frac{ \partial^2 \widetilde{V}_{\rm eff(2)}}{\partial r^2} = \Omega^2 - \frac{2GM}{r^3}.\nonumber<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]

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

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 $r$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K