Why conservation of angular momentum is not applicable here

AI Thread Summary
Comets follow elliptical orbits around the sun, leading to varying speeds at different distances. The conservation of angular momentum is not applicable in this scenario due to the comet's velocity having both radial and perpendicular components. To accurately determine angular momentum, the mass of the sun must be considered, which is not provided in the problem. The correct approach involves using the general definition of angular momentum, incorporating the relationship between the velocity and radial vectors. Understanding these principles is crucial for solving the problem correctly.
Mohammed Shoaib
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Comets travel around the sun in elliptical orbits with large eccentricities. If a comet has speed 2.0×104 m/s when at a distance of 2.6×1011 m from the center of the sun, what is its speed when at a distance of 5.2×1010 m .
Express your answer using two significant figures

I applied conservation of angular momentum. But my answer goes wrong. Why?
my working
upload_2016-10-7_11-40-24.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since the orbit is elliptical, the comet's velocity has a component in the direction of the sun (radial line) as well as a component perpendicular to a radial line to the sun. I'm not sure how you would determine angular momentum in this situation. You could use potential versus kinetic energy, but you'd have to know the mass of the sun (the comets mass, being much smaller than the sun's mass, could be ignored), and the problem statement doesn't include the mass of the sun.
 
Last edited:
The equation for angular momentum you used includes an assumption about the relationship between the velocity vector and the radial vector.
The relation you should use is ##\vec L = \vec r \times \vec p##
[edit: beat me to it...]
 
Thanks for help.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top