1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Separate the variables by using kinetic energy and potential energy

  1. Sep 14, 2006 #1
    Is it possible to solve [tex]x^2\ddot{x}=\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m}[/tex] to get x(t)? I can't see how!! Maybe I'm just missing something...
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 18, 2006 #2
    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
     
  4. Sep 18, 2006 #3

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  5. Sep 18, 2006 #4
    Spooky....

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

    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.
     
  6. Sep 18, 2006 #5
    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
     
  7. Sep 18, 2006 #6
    in two dimension this is known as the one body problem (using a equilvalent equation in 2D)... you might wanna 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...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?