Separate the variables by using kinetic energy and potential energy

Tomsk
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to solve x^2\ddot{x}=\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m} to get x(t)? I can't see how! Maybe I'm just missing something...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tomsk said:
Is it possible to solve x^2\ddot{x}=\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m} to get x(t)? I can't see how! Maybe I'm just missing something...

You can separate the variables by using kinetic energy and potential energy, and conservation of angular momentum. I did that. I put
it all into polar coordinates - and I came with an integral of a function
of r (radius) that there's probably a formula for somewhere. It's not
an easy integral though.

It's simpler if you assume the particles don't have any angular momentum relative to each other. That's how I got curious about it - I did an exercise about the enormous acceleration a proton would have, jetting out of the nucleus, if there weren't any strong nuclear forces holding it
in. So I wondered, what's its equation of motion?

You could figure out the proton's final velocity without doing any
complicated integrals - that would be (sort of) interesting too.

Laura
 
Certainly.
Let the squared position stand in the denominator on the right-hand side, and multiply your diff. eq. with the velocity.
You now will get a first integral (take note of the sign of the square root used!), this can be integrated one more time.
 
Spooky...

Well, I got
x^3=-\frac{9}{2}\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m}t^2

The sign threw me though, so I'm not sure of it.

Thanks! I might try it relativistically, to stop my brain from rotting before I go back to uni.
 
One thing, there's only one m taken into account, which must be the mass of the particle which moves a distance x, or is x the distance between the two particles? I'm assuming they're both free to move, so wouldn't you need to take both masses into account? Hmmm
 
in two dimension this is known as the one body problem (using a equilvalent equation in 2D)... you might want to try to solve that (it is impossible to get r(t) explicitly, but you can find out the shape of the orbit) its a lot of "fun". after that go to two body problem... more fun awaits...
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top