Total energy of the system when two gravitating particles are

In summary, two masses that are very far apart can come together and form an orbit if they have zero kinetic energy.
  • #1
s0ft
83
0
Suppose we've got two still particles of any mass we would like, infinitely far apart.
The total energy here is of course sum of their mass energies.
Now if we bring them together so that one orbits around the other, what would be the total energy of this system? Perhaps, my guess, in such situation where there are only two still particles, without external force, since it is not possible for them to form an orbiting system (please check this for me, but I think it should be true), the change in total energy of the system will be only equal to the work done by the external force.
Is that true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
s0ft said:
Suppose we've got two still particles of any mass we would like, infinitely far apart.
Ok.
The total energy here is of course sum of their mass energies.
Not OK. What is mass energy supposed to be?
Now if we bring them together so that one orbits around the other, what would be the total energy of this system?
The potential energy of the masses with respect to each other plus the kinetic energy of the masses in the centre of mass inertial frame plus a possible kinetic energy due to the velocity of the centre of mass plus an arbitrary constant (if we are not using relativity)
Perhaps, my guess, in such situation where there are only two still particles, without external force, since it is not possible for them to form an orbiting system (please check this for me, but I think it should be true), the change in total energy of the system will be only equal to the work done by the external force.
Is that true?

Yes and no. You do not specify how you want to "bring them together". Let's say that they are very far apart but not infinitely far apart. Then they will attract due to gravity and finally collide with a speed that is given by the potential energy at the distance of collision. If one particle has a tiny bit of tangential speed the particles can form a highly elliptical orbit. Not much is necessary, because the particles speed up a lot the closer they get. The energy of this system is conserved. No force is necessary to bring the particles together. If forces are applied then the energy may change.
 
  • #3
Not OK. What is mass energy supposed to be?
Just the energy equivalent of their masses.
Is it possible for two still particles finite distance apart to come together and form any orbit at all? Because I don't see how they could get that crucial bit of 'tangential' velocity.
 
  • #4
s0ft said:
Just the energy equivalent of their masses.
Is it possible for two still particles finite distance apart to come together and form any orbit at all? Because I don't see how they could get that crucial bit of 'tangential' velocity.

They don't acquire that tiny bit of tangential velocity, they have to start with it. If they started out completely at rest relative to one another, so there was absolutely no tangential component to their relative velocity, then they wouldn't form an orbit - they'd just move straight towards each other until they collided. That's easier said than done.

Btw, the key principle at work here is conservation of angular momentum (along with conservation of energy). The sum of the kinetic and potential energy is constant, as is the total angular momentum. The particles will end up in some sort of orbit unless they started with exactly zero angular momentum, which would mean zero tangential velocity.
 
  • #5
Ok, thanks.
 
  • #6
The energy of the two masses orbiting each other is less than the energy of the masses infinitely apart and not moving. That's because gravity has a negative potential energy. If the masses are bound together by gravity, that means the potential energy plus the kinetic energy is negative. If you take the average over an orbital period for a gravitationally bound pair, the potential energy is twice as large as the kinetic energy and negative thanks to the virial theorem.
 
  • #7
So, is it ok to say there is this 'mass defect' here? The 'price' to pay for creating a system is a small loss in the total energy of the system?
 

1. What is the total energy of a system when two gravitating particles are present?

The total energy of a system with two gravitating particles is equal to the sum of their kinetic and potential energies. This can be calculated using the formula E = K + U, where E is the total energy, K is the kinetic energy, and U is the potential energy.

2. How does the distance between the two particles affect the total energy of the system?

The total energy of the system is inversely proportional to the distance between the two particles. As the distance decreases, the potential energy increases, resulting in a decrease in the total energy. Conversely, as the distance increases, the potential energy decreases, resulting in an increase in the total energy.

3. What is the relationship between the masses of the particles and the total energy of the system?

The total energy of the system is directly proportional to the masses of the particles. As the masses increase, the potential energy also increases, resulting in an increase in the total energy. Similarly, as the masses decrease, the potential energy and total energy decrease.

4. Does the direction of the particles' motion affect the total energy of the system?

No, the direction of the particles' motion does not affect the total energy of the system. As long as the particles are gravitationally attracted to each other, the total energy will remain the same regardless of their direction of motion.

5. Can the total energy of the system be negative?

Yes, the total energy of the system can be negative. This occurs when the kinetic energy is greater than the potential energy, resulting in a negative total energy. This is often seen in bound systems, such as planets orbiting a star.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
931
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
780
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
913
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
451
Replies
52
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
607
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top