Tidal Potential & Binomial Approximation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the tidal potential formula in the context of gravitational physics, specifically focusing on the influence of the moon on Earth's tides. The original poster is attempting to replicate a derivation from a textbook that involves the tidal potential formula and the binomial approximation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the tidal potential using the provided formula and the binomial approximation but encounters difficulties in simplifying the expression. Some participants question the physical significance of the terms in the tidal potential equation and suggest clarifying the assumptions made in the derivation. Others propose expanding the binomial approximation to a higher order to achieve more accurate results.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's derivation, offering insights into the physical interpretation of the terms involved. There is acknowledgment of errors in the original poster's approach, and suggestions have been made to correct the signs and coefficients in the equations. The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations and methods to resolve the issues raised.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the need to consider the physical implications of the terms in the tidal potential equation and the relevance of non-inertial reference frames. The original poster also notes a mistake regarding the sign difference between variables, which has been addressed by other participants.

McCoy13
Messages
71
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


There is a derivation in the text that I'm having problems replicating. The text gives the formula for tidal potential as:

[tex]U_{tid}=-GM_{m}m(\frac{1}{d}-\frac{x}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

Where [itex]M_{m}[/itex] is the mass of the moon, d is the distance from the CM of the moon to the point of interest on the surface of the Earth, [itex]d_{0}[/itex] is the distance between the CM of the moon and the CM of the earth, and x as the lateral distance of the point.

I'm having trouble deriving the potential for a point on the horizontal axis. That is [itex]d=d_{0}-r[/itex] where r is the radius of the earth, and [itex]x=-r[/itex]

Homework Equations


The text gives the answer as

[tex]U_{tid}=-\frac{GM_{m}m}{d_{0}}(1+\frac{r^{2}}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

It suggests using the binomial approximation of

[tex](1+x)^{-1/2}=1-\frac{x}{2}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]U_{tid}=-GM_{m}m(\frac{1}{\sqrt{(d_{0}-r)^{2}}}+\frac{r}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

[tex]U_{tid}=-GM_{m}m(\frac{1}{d_{0}\sqrt{1-2\frac{r}{d_{0}}+\frac{r^{2}}{d^{2}_{0}}}}+\frac{r}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

[tex]U_{tid}=-\frac{GM_{m}m}{d_{0}}(1+\frac{r}{d_{0}}-\frac{r^{2}}{2d^{2}_{0}}+\frac{r}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

It is unclear to me where to proceed from here, as there are no like terms and putting them in terms of a common denominator does not seem to help. I thought of perhaps needing to do an additional binomial approximation, but it is unclear to me how that would help or even how I would go about doing it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Things are a bit confusing, since you don't explain the physical significance of the terms in

[tex] U_{tid}=-GM_{m}m(\frac{1}{d}-\frac{x}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

From first principles, the potential due to the moon on an element on the horizontal axis is

[tex]U = =-GM_{m}m \frac{1}{d_0 -r} \sim - \frac{GM_{m}m }{d_0} \left( 1 + \frac{r}{d_0} + \frac{r^2}{d_0^2} + \cdots \right).[/tex]

The first term is constant and doesn't product a force. The second term produces a constant force, which is what keeps the Earth-Moon system bound. Since this term doesn't cause tides, your book seems to be subtracting it from the potential U to define the tidal potential

[tex] U_{tid}= U - \left(- \frac{GM_{m}m r}{d_0^2} \right) = - GM_{m}m \left( \frac{1}{d} - \frac{r}{d_0^2} \right). ~~(*)[/tex]

I'm not sure why you claim there is a sign difference between [tex]r[/tex] and [tex]x[/tex], but I've given a physical argument for the sign in the equation (*) above.

With the correct sign, you'll be much closer to obtaining the correct answer. However, your formula

[tex] U_{tid}=-\frac{GM_{m}m}{d_{0}}(1+\frac{r}{d_{0}}-\frac{r^{2}}{2d^{2}_{0}}+\frac{r}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

has a couple more problems. First there is a problem with the factor of [tex]d_0[/tex] in the last term that should be straightforward to clear up. Secondly you should take your expansion

[tex] (1+x)^{-1/2}=1-\frac{x}{2}[/tex]

out to quadratic order since you are interested in computing terms of [tex]O(r^2)[/tex]. This will correct the coefficient of the quadratic term.
 
fzero said:
Things are a bit confusing, since you don't explain the physical significance of the terms in

[tex] U_{tid}=-GM_{m}m(\frac{1}{d}-\frac{x}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

From first principles, the potential due to the moon on an element on the horizontal axis is

[tex]U = =-GM_{m}m \frac{1}{d_0 -r} \sim - \frac{GM_{m}m }{d_0} \left( 1 + \frac{r}{d_0} + \frac{r^2}{d_0^2} + \cdots \right).[/tex]

The first term is constant and doesn't product a force. The second term produces a constant force, which is what keeps the Earth-Moon system bound. Since this term doesn't cause tides, your book seems to be subtracting it from the potential U to define the tidal potential

[tex] U_{tid}= U - \left(- \frac{GM_{m}m r}{d_0^2} \right) = - GM_{m}m \left( \frac{1}{d} - \frac{r}{d_0^2} \right). ~~(*)[/tex]

The book derives the potential as an illustration as the utility of non-inertial reference frames. It says that for a mass m, the acceleration relative to the non-inertial reference frame is given by the usual sum of the forces (gravitation with both the Earth and the moon) plus an inertial force (in the case the mass times the centripetal acceleration of the Earth towards the moon). This leads to

[tex]m\ddot{r}=mg+F_{tid}+F_{ng}[/tex]

Where [itex]F_{ng}[/itex] are any non-gravitational forces (e.g. buoyancy) and

[tex]F_{tid}=-GM_{m}m(\frac{\hat{d}}{d^{2}}-\frac{\hat{d_{0}}}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

They simply treat force as the negative gradient on d and x to get U, it seems.

fzero said:
I'm not sure why you claim there is a sign difference between [tex]r[/tex] and [tex]x[/tex], but I've given a physical argument for the sign in the equation (*) above.
Yeah, that was a mistake.

fzero said:
With the correct sign, you'll be much closer to obtaining the correct answer. However, your formula

[tex] U_{tid}=-\frac{GM_{m}m}{d_{0}}(1+\frac{r}{d_{0}}-\frac{r^{2}}{2d^{2}_{0}}+\frac{r}{d^{2}_{0}})[/tex]

has a couple more problems. First there is a problem with the factor of [tex]d_0[/tex] in the last term that should be straightforward to clear up. Secondly you should take your expansion

[tex] (1+x)^{-1/2}=1-\frac{x}{2}[/tex]

out to quadratic order since you are interested in computing terms of [tex]O(r^2)[/tex]. This will correct the coefficient of the quadratic term.
I'll take a look at this in the morning, but I think I see how it goes now. I forgot to factor out a [itex]d_{0}[/itex] of the last term when I factored it out from the square root, and so that will cancel with the other term once I fix the signs. As for fixing the coefficient, that's going to take some algebra for me to get, and instead I'm going to sleep for now.

Thanks for your help.
 
Taking the approximation to the second order you get a coefficient of +3/8, and the only term that survives is (2r/do)^2 giving coefficients of -1/2+3/2 = 1. Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
46
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K