Understanding Mercury's Precession

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter OnceKnown
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Precession
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the precession of Mercury, specifically addressing a lab assignment that involves deriving equations related to gravitational forces and angular momentum. Participants are exploring the application of Newtonian mechanics and the role of the gravitational constant in these calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over a derived equation related to the effective potential minimum for Mercury's orbit, questioning the validity of the resulting radius.
  • Another participant suggests that the equation should include the gravitational constant G, indicating that the expression for gravitational force should be GM/r instead of M/r.
  • A participant clarifies that the equations are based on Newton's initial calculations regarding Mercury's precession and questions whether the gravitational constant was considered in those early calculations.
  • Another participant agrees that the gravitational constant is necessary for both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity to ensure the equations are coherent and unit-consistent.
  • A participant raises a concern about obtaining a negative number within a radical in a later part of the lab assignment, indicating potential issues with either their calculations or the provided formula.
  • One participant advises checking the units in the last equation to identify any errors in the formulas used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the necessity of the gravitational constant in the equations, but there is uncertainty regarding the correctness of the derived expressions and calculations related to Mercury's precession. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific errors in the lab assignment.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential missing assumptions in the equations, dependence on the correct application of the gravitational constant, and unresolved mathematical steps leading to negative values in calculations.

OnceKnown
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I was recently given a lab to work at home but I am having trouble understanding the formulas that they have used.

The link to this lab Assignment:
http://classroom.sdmesa.edu/ssiegel/Physics%20197/labs/Mercury%20Precession.pdf

My problem relies to Query #1 of the lab assignment, with the equation
\frac{V(r)}{m} = - \frac{M}{r} + \frac{(\frac{L}{m})^{2}}{r^{2}}

I derived it to be equal to:
\frac{d}{dr} \frac{V(r)}{m} = \frac{M}{r^{2}} - \frac{2(\frac{L}{m})^{2}}{r^{3}}

So I was told that M = mass of the Sun = 1.99 x 10^{30} kg
m = mass of Mercury = 3.28 x 10^{23} kg
L = angular momentum of Mercury = 9.11 x 10 ^{38} \frac{kg m^{2}}{s^{2}}

I equated the derived equation to 0 and solved for " r " to get:
r_{o} = \frac{2(\frac{L}{m})^{2}}{M}

which r_{o} = 7.729, which should be the radius at the effective potential minimum

But that doesn't make sense at all since the number is so low and the units doesn't seem right.
Can someone help with this?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
M/r should be GM/r with the gravitational constant G.
 
Hi Mfb,

The equations were based off Newton's attempt to study Mercury's precession. And the point of the lab is to see why he was off in his calculations.

I'm wondering if the GM/r with with the gravitational constant G was used for the first attempt to calculate Mercury's precession by Newtonian methods?

Thank you for your help!
 
Of course. You need the gravitational constant both in Newtonian gravity and General Relativity, otherwise the equations do not make sense (and the units to not match either).
 
I have one last question on the lab assignment regarding to Query #5.

I'm getting an incorrect expression when working with Einstein's equation to determine the perihelion of Mercury. At the end of the equation I'm getting a negative number within the radical of my 2nd pic near the end.

I don't know if I did a calculation incorrectly or the formula was given to me incorrectly. I also added in the gravitational constant G to the formula.


1st Page:
38d9454e-7706-4f90-b903-0246a5047d03_zpsdf163876.jpg


2nd Page:
image-1_zps5276ba49.jpe


Let me know if you can read the images, sorry for the small writing.
 
The units in the last equation do not match. Just check them in your formulas, and you will find the error.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
3K