Understanding Shared Potential Energy in a Gravitational System

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the gravitational potential energy of a two-body system defined by the formula U_{grav} = -G \frac{m_1m_2}{r}, where r is the separation between the masses m_1 and m_2. It clarifies that when analyzing the motion of one mass, the other is often assumed to be stationary due to its significantly larger mass. This simplification is effective in many scenarios, such as objects in Earth's gravitational field or planets orbiting the sun. However, the complexity increases when both masses are similar, necessitating a different approach that accounts for their mutual motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational potential energy
  • Familiarity with Newton's law of gravitation
  • Basic knowledge of center of mass concepts
  • Experience with motion analysis in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of gravitational potential energy in two-body problems
  • Learn about the center of mass frame in classical mechanics
  • Investigate the effects of varying mass ratios on gravitational interactions
  • Study advanced topics in orbital mechanics and perturbation theory
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching gravitational concepts, and researchers analyzing two-body gravitational systems will benefit from this discussion.

PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20
Given two point masses, ##m_1## and ##m_2##, we define the gravitational potential energy of this system as:

$$U_{grav} = -G \frac{m_1m_2}{r}$$

Where ##r## is the separation between ##m_1## and ##m_2##.

When we analyze the motion of a single component, say ##m_1## in this system, we usually say things like:

The potential energy of ##m_1## is:

$$U_{grav} = -G \frac{m_1m_2}{r}$$

This is where my intuition fails. As dumb as this may sound, why isn't potential energy shared in some ratio between ##m_1## and ##m_2##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MohammedRady97 said:
This is where my intuition fails. As dumb as this may sound, why isn't potential energy shared in some ratio between ##m_1## and ##m_2##?

When we're analyzing the problem in terms of the motion of only one of the two bodies, we are making an assumption that mass of the other body is so great that it is effectively not moving at all. That works just fine for objects moving around in Earth's gravitational field (where you probably first saw this treatment of potential energy), planets orbiting the sun, and the like.
 
Nugatory said:
When we're analyzing the problem in terms of the motion of only one of the two bodies, we are making an assumption that mass of the other body is so great that it is effectively not moving at all. That works just fine for objects moving around in Earth's gravitational field (where you probably first saw this treatment of potential energy), planets orbiting the sun, and the like.

What if the masses of the two bodies were similar? How would our analysis differ in that case?
 
MohammedRady97 said:
What if the masses of the two bodies were similar? How would our analysis differ in that case?
The problem becomes appreciably harder, but you can choose coordinates in which the center of mass of the two bodies is at rest and both objects are in motion and you'll get sensible results.
 
Nugatory said:
When we're analyzing the problem in terms of the motion of only one of the two bodies, we are making an assumption that mass of the other body is so great that it is effectively not moving at all. That works just fine for objects moving around in Earth's gravitational field (where you probably first saw this treatment of potential energy), planets orbiting the sun, and the like.

So the approximation is that we consider one mass to be stationary, correct?
 
MohammedRady97 said:
So the approximation is that we consider one mass to be stationary, correct?
Yes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K