Revolving Around a Star: Calculating an Orbital Period

AI Thread Summary
A planet with Earth's mass orbiting a star 100 times the Sun's mass would have an orbital period of approximately 36.5 days, based on calculations comparing it to Earth's 365-day period. The formula used for the orbital period is T = √(4π²r³/Gm), and the adjustment for the increased mass results in a period that is one-tenth of Earth's. The original poster expressed confusion over receiving no marks for this calculation during an exam. Other participants agreed that the calculations were correct, suggesting a possible misunderstanding regarding the notation used for mass. The discussion emphasizes the importance of clear communication in physics problems to avoid misinterpretation.
danago
Gold Member
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
4
A star has a mass approximately 100 times that of our sun. If a planet with the same mass as the Earth is oribiting at a radius similar to that of the Earth's radius around the sun, how long would it take the planet to revolve around the star once?

Ok, the period of the Earth's rotation is given by:
<br /> T_e = \sqrt {\frac{{4\pi ^2 r^3 }}{{Gm_e}}} <br />

If the radius remains the same, and the mass increases by a factor of 100, the period in comparison to the Earth's period is given by:

<br /> T_p = \frac{1}{{10}}\sqrt {\frac{{4\pi ^2 r^3 }}{{Gm_e}}} <br />

Comparing these two, we see that T_p = \frac{1}{{10}}T_e

If the period of the Earth's revolution around the sun is 1 year i.e. 365 days, then the period of the other planet is one tenth of that i.e. 36.5 days.

It was an exam question and that was my working, and i got no marks for it. Where have i gone wrong?

Thanks,
Dan.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks right to me... only thing that maybe could be seen as a mistake is that you used "me"... with the subscript e... giving the impression that you might mean mass of the earth... instead of mass of the sun.

But your answer looks right... I'd talk to the prof and ask him...
 
Ooops didnt mean to write m_e, i didnt even use any subscript in my exam, just used m. Well i thought that might be the case, because i was pretty confident with that question. Thanks for clearing it up :smile:
 
well i think that your physics teacher should be shot, that working is perfect, and ordered in a logical manner, find out where he lives and go right now to get the marks you deserve.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top