Radial movement in a gravitational field

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the challenge of deriving the position function ##r(t)## for a particle in a Newtonian gravitational field, specifically under the influence of a much larger mass. The user successfully integrates Newton's second law to find the total energy and formulates an integral to express ##t(r)##. However, they express difficulty in inverting this relation to obtain ##r(t)##. A physics professor contributes by providing a specific solution for the case where the particle falls from an infinite distance, yielding the simplified equation ##r(t) = (r_b^{3/2} - 3(\sqrt{GM/2}) t)^{2/3}.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's second law of motion
  • Familiarity with gravitational fields and potential energy
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly integration techniques
  • Basic grasp of Kepler's laws of planetary motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of energy conservation in gravitational fields
  • Learn about the application of Kepler's laws in classical mechanics
  • Explore advanced integration techniques for solving differential equations
  • Investigate the implications of non-constant acceleration in motion
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and researchers interested in classical mechanics, particularly those studying gravitational motion and energy conservation principles.

haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
3,066
Reaction score
1,586
Dear all,
to keep me busy on a Sunday I considered the "1-body radial movement in a (Newtonian) gravitational field problem". I was a bit surprised to find it quite hard finding decent explanations on it. My question is: does anyone have a reference of the explicit solution to the particle's position ##r(t)##? Let me show my calculation:

We consider a particle with mass m being attracted by a mass M >> m in a gravitational field. We let it go at ##t=0## from a distance ##r(t)=r_b##. Newton's second law states

m\ddot{r} = - \frac{GMm}{r^2}

We can integrate this equation to find the total energy,

E = \frac{m}{2}\dot{r}^2 - \frac{GMm}{r} \ \ \ \ \ (1)

which is conserved on-shell (by Newton's second law),

\dot{E} = (m\ddot{r} + \frac{GMm}{r^2}) \dot{r} = 0

I want to solve for the particle's position ##r(t)## using the energy. For that I rewrite eqn.(1) as

\dot{r} = - \frac{\sqrt{2Er + 2GMm}}{\sqrt{mr}}

choosing the minus-sign because the particle's position ##r(t)## decreases. Now we separate variables:

\int_{r_b}^{r} \frac{\sqrt{r}}{\sqrt{Er+GMm}}dr = -\sqrt{\frac{2}{m}} \int_0^t dt

The integral can be solved by using the "standard" primitive

\int \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\sqrt{x+a}}dx = \sqrt{x^2 + ax} - a \ln{|\sqrt{x} + \sqrt{x+a} |} + C

with ##a## constant and C the integration constant:

\Bigl[\sqrt{r^2+ar} - a \ln{|\sqrt{r}+\sqrt{r+a}|} \Bigr] - \Bigl[\sqrt{r^2_b+a r_b} - a \ln{|\sqrt{r_b}+\sqrt{r_b+a}|} \Bigr] = - \sqrt{\frac{2E}{m}} t

where I defined

a \equiv \frac{GMm}{E}

This gives us ##t(r)##.

I must say that, having not done this kind of stuff for a while, I'm a bit surprised that simple radial movement in the 1-body approximation already gives a nasty integral like this. My question is basically this: can I invert my relation to obtain ##r(t)##? Between ##r(t)=r_b## and ##r(t)=0## the function ##r(t)## should be invertible, right? And am I right to be surprised that the result is quite complicated, or did I make a mistake?Thanks in advance!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kninfinite and jerromyjon
Physics news on Phys.org
While I can't comment much on your work, the problem did remind me of one we did in Classical Physics.

We needed to show that a particle initially at rest and then falling from a great height to the Earth took 9/11 of the time to fall the first half of the journey. On the surface, it looks straightforward but then you must relate distance fallen to time fallen and then things get nasty.

After falling to solve it a prof gave us a hint to use Kepler's laws to simplify it namely the equal areas in equal times law and to consider a very narrow orbit and then the problem fell apart.
 
You did all the calculus correctly, but I agree it isn't very satisfying, not being able to invert it to get r as a function of t. However, if you assume that the object falls from an infinite distance and from rest, E = 0. This simplifies the equations considerably leading to the result:

r(t) = ( rb3/2 - 3(√(GM/2)) t )2/3 .

I know you posted this several months ago, but I am a physics professor and I thought I'd give you a way to get r(t) if only for a specific case. - Bob
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: haushofer

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
826
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
861