Planet Trajectory: Why Elliptical & Circular Paths?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Planets move in elliptical or circular paths due to the nature of gravitational forces, which act continuously and require smooth changes in trajectory. Sharp corners in paths, such as squares or octagons, are impossible because they would necessitate infinitely large forces to create abrupt changes in direction. This behavior aligns with Kepler's first law of orbital motion, which states that orbits are conic sections—specifically circles, ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas—derived from Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. The complexity of orbits increases with the presence of additional gravitating bodies that perturb these trajectories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational forces and their continuous nature
  • Familiarity with Kepler's laws of planetary motion
  • Basic knowledge of Newton's laws of motion
  • Concept of conic sections in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Kepler's laws of planetary motion in detail
  • Explore Newton's laws of motion and their applications in orbital mechanics
  • Learn about conic sections and their properties in geometry
  • Investigate the effects of multiple gravitational bodies on orbital trajectories
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physics students, and anyone interested in understanding the mechanics of planetary motion and gravitational interactions.

kay
Messages
60
Reaction score
2
Hi all.
This may be a stupid question to some.. But please do answer it.
Why do planets move in an elliptical path? Why only ellipse? Or even a circular path for approximation? Why not a path which has corners? Like an octagon or a square?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's the way forces work. If you apply a steady or nearly steady force on an object over a long period of time, it will turn in a smooth motion, not a jerky one with corners. To really understand it you'd have to get into the math.
 
As you know, one of the fundamental laws of nature is the one that says objects move in straight lines at constant velocity unless acted on by a force.

If you apply a force to the object, it will gradually change its path and/or velocity. The higher the force, the more sudden a change. For the path to change in a fashion that produces a perfect, sharp bend, like a corner in a square, the force would have to be infinitely large - in any other case (which means, in all cases in reality as there is no such thing as an infinitely large force) the change will be gradual. This removes as a possibility all the shapes that are not rounded.

Now, say you want a rectangle with rounded corners. The trajectory would be such that there is a bend, then a long straight stretch, then another bend and so on. This would require whathever force is acting on the object to periodicaly turn itself on and off, or at least change direction so that at times it acts in line with the object's trajectory, at times at an angle.

Gravity doesn't do that. It's always "on", and there is always a component of the force perpendicular to the motion*. This necessitates a trajectory that doesn't have straight bits*.
(*unless falling exactly towards the centre of the central mass, but then it's always straight)

Furthermore, due to the way the force of gravity scales with distance (##1/R^2##) , any curving of the trajectory will be such that it is more gradual the farther away the orbiting object is from the central body. This reduces the possible shapes of orbits to "conic sections" - this includes a circle, an ellipse, a parabola and a hyperbola. This fact is known as Kepler's first law of orbital motion, observationally derived by Kepler, and later mathematically derived by Newton from his laws of motion and the law of gravitation.

In general, this behaviour, as well as e.g., the motion being planar, is a property of objects affected by "central forces".

It is worth noting that orbits get more complicated, and more diverging from the ideal conic sections, as you add more gravitating bodies that act to perturb and deflect the trajectories.

You can read more about keplerian orbits here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit
and about properties of central forces here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_central-force_problem
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoM-z14 Any photon with energy above 24.6 eV is going to ionize any atom. K, L X-rays would certainly ionize atoms. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-the-most-distant-galaxy/ The James Webb Space Telescope has found the most distant galaxy ever seen, at the dawn of the cosmos. Again. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/webb-mom-z14 A Cosmic Miracle: A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at zspec = 14.44 Confirmed with JWST...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K