Time for two objects to collide due to gravity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the problem of determining the time it takes for two objects to collide due to gravitational attraction, including the calculation of their final velocities. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and concepts related to gravitational forces, acceleration, and the dynamics of two-body problems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the force between two objects changes with distance, leading to varying acceleration, and seeks to find the time until collision and final velocities.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the quantities involved vary nonlinearly, suggesting the need for differential equations rather than linear equations.
  • A participant mentions that the problem is non-trivial and refers to a mathematical framework that applies to both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity, indicating the use of proper time.
  • One participant introduces the concept of the reduced mass to simplify the two-body problem into a one-body problem, providing relevant equations from a Wikipedia article.
  • There is a discussion about the use of substitutions in integrals, specifically regarding the variable 'u' and its role in simplifying calculations.
  • Another participant questions the origin of a specific substitution involving the variable θ, which is used to simplify an integral related to the problem.
  • Responses clarify that the substitution is not an identity but a definition based on observation, aimed at simplifying the integral's evaluation.
  • Further elaboration is provided on how the substitution was derived, involving trial and error and insights into functional forms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and approaches to the problem, with no consensus reached on a single method or solution. Multiple competing views and techniques are presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the problem and the necessity of nonlinear equations, but specific assumptions and mathematical steps remain unresolved.

LightningBolt226
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
When two objects, there is a change in the force they exert on each other due to gravity because of the change in distance between them. Therefore, there's also changing acceleration. How do I find the time it takes for the two to collide? Their final velocities?
I've already looked at quite a few other threads on this forum but I still haven't been able to find one that answers this question nor gives me any clues on how to proceed.
First Thread
Second Thread
These 2 links proved to be particularly helpful. There's just a part I don't quite understand because of arildno's answer on the second thread which has messed up LaTeX formatting which was referred to in rcqldr's answer on the first thread.
I don't quite understand where u came from nor what it represents.

This is what I've come up with so far on my own:

I originally tackled this as an object approaching a planet so I only looked at it from the perspective of the object.

Finding the time taken:
v-v_{0} = a_{0}t + \frac{1}{2}jt^{2}
\frac{1}{2}jt^{2}+a_{0}t-(v-v_{0})=0
t=\frac{-a_{0}\pm \sqrt{a_{0}^{2}+2j(v-v_{0})}}{j}

Finding acceleration:
a=\frac{GM}{r^{2}}

Finding jerk. I read on another thread that the derivative of gravitational force is jerk. Is this right? What's making me wonder is the fact that it's negative. Does that mean the acceleration is decreasing?
j=\frac{\partial F}{\partial r}=\frac{\partial }{\partial r}\left(\frac{GmM}{r^{2}}\right)=-\frac{2GMm}{r^{3}}

Finding final velocity:
KE_{i} + PE_{i} = KE_{f} + PE_{f}
\frac{1}{2}mv_{i}^{2}-\frac{GMm}{r_{i}}=\frac{1}{2}mv_{f}^{2}-\frac{GMm}{r_{f}}
Assuming that the other object has no initial velocity, the starting KE can be canceled out.
\frac{1}{2}v_{f}^{2}=\frac{GM}{r_{f}}-\frac{GM}{r_{i}}
v=\sqrt{\frac{2GM(r_{i}-r_{f})}{r_{i}r_{f}}}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All the quantities (position, velocity, acceleration, jerk, ...) will vary in a nonlinear way. You cannot use equations that require them to be linear, you'll need a differential equation to solve.
LightningBolt226 said:
Does that mean the acceleration is decreasing?
Depends on your sign convention, if acceleration is negative then its increase in magnitude gives a negative jerk.
 
LightningBolt226 said:
When two objects, there is a change in the force they exert on each other due to gravity because of the change in distance between them. Therefore, there's also changing acceleration. How do I find the time it takes for the two to collide? Their final velocities?
This is actually not a trivial problem. I believe that the maths you need is here. This first example is worked for Newtonian gravity, but as it happens the solution translates identically to GR if you use proper time as the time variable (this is how we can work out the proper time to "hit the singularity").
 
This is a classical central force problem.
(cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_central-force_problem)
A two body problem can easily be turned into a one-body problem using the reduced mass.
If they are traveling in a straight line toward each other, it's simpler still.
You can use the equation given in the wiki, changing m to mu, and taking r to mean the relative distance.
##\mu = \frac{mM}{m+M}##
##|t-t_0| = \sqrt{\frac{\mu}{2}} \int \frac{|dr|}{\sqrt{E_\text{tot} - U(r)}}##
##U(r) = -\frac{mMG}{r}##
##E_\text{tot}=U(r_0) + \frac{1}{2}\mu v_0^2##
Try to take it from there
 
LightningBolt226 said:
I don't quite understand where u came from nor what it represents.
u was used for a substitution to help solve that last integral. There is a more recent thread, using an alternate substitution (θ) for the last integral.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rectilinear-motion-of-two-attracting-masses.849750

You'll need to need to determine θ0 and θ1 based on r. If these are point masses, then

##θ_0 = \frac{\pi}{2}##
##θ_1 = 0##
 
Last edited:
rcgldr said:
u was used for a substitution to help solve that last integral. There is a more recent thread, using an alternate substitution (θ) for the last integral.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/rectilinear-motion-of-two-attracting-masses.849750

You'll need to need to determine θ0 and θ1 based on r. If these are point masses, then

##θ_0 = \frac{\pi}{2}##
##θ_1 = 0##

Thanks so much for the link. I understand the solution now. I just have one question. There was a part where θ was defined as
r=r_{0}sin^{2}θ
Where was this identity derived from?
 
LightningBolt226 said:
There was a part where θ was defined as
r=r_{0}sin^{2}θ
Where was this identity derived from?
It's not an identity, it's a definition of θ based on observation designed to simplify the integral, so that after substitution, the square root expression becomes tan(θ).
 
rcgldr said:
It's not an identity, it's a definition of θ based on observation designed to simplify the integral, so that after substitution, the square root expression becomes tan(θ).

Sorry, I meant the definition. I don't understand how the equation was formed. Could you please elaborate? Thanks :)
 
LightningBolt226 said:
I don't understand how the equation was formed.
Either by observation or trial and error. Starting off with r / (r0 - r), you choose some substitution r = r0 f(θ), in which case r / (r0 - r) becomes r0 f(θ) / (r0 - r0 f(θ)) = r0 (f(θ) / (1 - f(θ))), and at this point some insight leads to choosing f(θ) = sin2(θ). (f(θ) = cos2(θ) could have also been chosen.)
 
  • #10
rcgldr said:
Either by observation or trial and error. Starting off with r / (r0 - r), you choose some substitution r = r0 f(θ), in which case r / (r0 - r) becomes r0 f(θ) / (r0 - r0 f(θ)) = r0 (f(θ) / (1 - f(θ))), and at this point some insight leads to choosing f(θ) = sin2(θ) (f(θ) = cos2(θ) could have also been chosen).

Oh. I get it now. Thanks so much! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K