I Radial movement in a gravitational field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of solving the radial movement of a particle in a Newtonian gravitational field, specifically focusing on deriving the particle's position function r(t). The original poster expresses surprise at the difficulty of obtaining a simple solution, as the integration leads to a complicated expression. A contributor suggests that while the calculations are correct, inverting the relation to find r(t) is not straightforward. They propose a simplified case where the particle falls from an infinite distance, leading to a more manageable equation for r(t). The conversation highlights the challenges of classical mechanics problems and the need for clever approaches to simplify complex integrals.
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
3,045
Reaction score
1,579
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 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 haushofer
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
I passed a motorcycle on the highway going the opposite direction. I know I was doing 125/km/h. I estimated that the frequency of his motor dropped by an entire octave, so that's a doubling of the wavelength. My intuition is telling me that's extremely unlikely. I can't actually calculate how fast he was going with just that information, can I? It seems to me, I have to know the absolute frequency of one of those tones, either shifted up or down or unshifted, yes? I tried to mimic the...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
398
Replies
41
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top