Time average of potential energy in Keplerian orbit

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the time average of potential energy in a two-body system within a Keplerian orbit. The original poster attempts to show that this average is equal to the instantaneous potential energy when the bodies are separated by the semi-major axis, a. The problem involves gravitational potential energy and the mathematical integration of functions over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster presents an equation for potential energy and attempts to compute its time average, questioning the presence of a factor in the denominator. Some participants suggest using conservation of angular momentum as a potential approach to simplify the integral.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering hints and discussing the implications of angular momentum on the integration process. There is an exploration of how to correctly express the time variable in terms of angular measure, indicating a productive direction in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the relationship between the period of the orbit and angular measures, as well as the proper handling of the integral in the context of the problem. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the assumptions being made in their calculations.

acr
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm trying to show that the time average of the potential energy of a 2-body system is equal to the instantaneous potential energy of that system when the two bodies are separated by a distance equal to the semi-major axis, a.

So I know that

[tex]U = \frac{-Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r}[/tex]

and the time average of a function [tex]f(t)[/tex] over a time interval [tex]\tau[/tex] is defined to be

[tex]<f(t)>=\frac{1}{\tau}\int_0^{\tau} f(t) dt[/tex]

and

[tex]r = \frac{a(1-e^{2})}{1+ecos \theta}[/tex]

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with my attempt? Here it is:

[tex]<U>=\frac{1}{P} \int_0^P \frac{-Gm_1m_2}{r} dt = \frac{-Gm_{1}m_{2}}{2\pi a(1-e^2)}\int_0^{2\pi}(1+ecos\theta) d\theta<br /> =\frac{-Gm_1m_2}{a(1-e^2)}[/tex],

but I'm supposed to be verifying that

[tex]<U>=\frac{-Gm_1m_2}{a}[/tex]

I can't seem to figure out how to get rid of that factor of (1-e^2) in the denominator. I suppose this can be simplified by just asking why/how

[tex]<\frac{1}{r}>=\frac{1}{a}[/tex]

and not

[tex]\frac{1}{a(1-e^2)}}[/tex]

Thank you for your time
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hello acr! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(nice LaTeX, btw :biggrin:)
acr said:
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with my attempt? Here it is:

[tex]<U>=\frac{1}{P} \int_0^P \frac{-Gm_1m_2}{r} dt = \frac{-Gm_{1}m_{2}}{2\pi a(1-e^2)}\int_0^{2\pi}(1+ecos\theta) d\theta<br /> =\frac{-Gm_1m_2}{a(1-e^2)}[/tex]

ah, you haven't converted 1/P properly (t = P when θ = 2π doesn't mean P = 2π, does it? :wink:), or dt.

Hint: use conservation of angular momentum. :wink:
 
Thanks tiny-tim,

I'm trying to make sense of how to incorporate the conservation of angular momentum. Would it be correct to assume that

[tex] \textbf{v} \times \textbf{r} = r^2 \frac{d\theta}{dt}=const=\frac{L}{m}[/tex]

is a valid statement? This would indicate that

[tex] dt=\frac{mr^2 }{L} d \theta[/tex]

but that doesn't seem to help much when I evaluate the new integral (or if it does, it's eluding me!)... I'm still not getting something. Any suggestions?
 
acr said:
[tex] dt=\frac{mr^2 }{L} d \theta[/tex]

That's right. :smile:

And now use that into the original integral, to substitute for dt. :wink:
 
Thanks again. Because r is the separation between m1 and m2, L would be m2r2 d theta/dt (choosing to let r represent the position of m2 relative to m1). When I use the result above for dt, the new integral ends up coming out as

[tex] <br /> \frac{-Gm_1 m_2^2 a (1-e^2)^{1/2}}{L}<br /> [/tex]

Which would indicate that I want L to be equal to

[tex] <br /> m_2 a^2 \sqrt{1-e^2} =m_2 a b<br /> [/tex]

I don't see how it could be, though. I am still using 2pi in place of P. I'm not sure how I should go about writing P in terms of angular measure, if this isn't correct. Any insights?

Thank you
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K