Differences between revisions 15 and 16
Revision 15 as of 2016-06-08 22:53:55
Size: 3262
Comment:
Revision 16 as of 2016-06-08 23:19:38
Size: 3070
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 62: Line 62:
|| 1000.0 || 1002.001 || || 1000.0 || 1002.001 || Sun to Jupiter ratio, approximately ||
|| 1.2e47 || 1.2e47 || Sun to hydrogen atom ||
Line 72: Line 73:
The force difference between an electron and a proton near a star could tear a hydrogen atom apart. Not very likely ... except oopsie, the $ F_? $ and center-of-mass calculation just got quite a bit more difficult, especially if the electron, proton, and star are not collinear.

An Inaccurate Gravitational Approximation

A colleague proposes a simplification to the gravitational equation, using the system center of mass.

Assume two masses m_1 and m_2 separated by distance r. According to standard Newtonian physics, the force between them is:

F_N ~ = ~ \Large { { G m_1 m_2 } \over { r ^ 2 } }

If r_1 is the distance from m_1 to the center of mass of the system, and r_2 the distance from the center of mass to m_2 , r_1 and r_2 can be calculated from

r_1 m_1 ~ = ~ r_2 m_2 ~ ~ ~ and ~ ~ ~ r_1 + r_2 ~ = ~ r

With a little bit of algebra, we can solve for r_1 ~ ~ ~ and ~ ~ ~ r_2 :

r_1 = \Large { r \over { 1 + m_2 / m_1 } } ~ ~ ~ and ~ ~ ~ r_2 = \large { r \over { 1 + m_1 / m_2 } }

My colleague (incorrectly) claims that the force can be calculated with:

F_? = G \Large { \left( { m_1 \over r_1 } \right) \left( { m_2 \over r_2 } \right) } . . . ????

Substituting the equations for r_1 and r_2 we get:

F_? = G \Large { \left( { m_1 ( 1 + m_2 / m_1 ) \over r } \right) \left( { m_2 ( 1 + m_1 / m_2 ) \over r } \right) } . . . ????

Simplifying:

F_? = { \Large { \left( { { G m_1 m_2 } \over { r ^ 2 } } \right) } } ( 1 + m_2 / m_1 ) ( 1 + m_1 / m_2 ) . . . ????

... which is never less than 4 times the actual Newtonian gravitational force.

Define b , the ratio of the masses, as

b = m_1 / m_2

Define the error factor E :

E = ( 1 + m_2 / m_1 ) ( 1 + m_1 / m_2 )

so that

F_? ~ = ~ F_N \times E

If b = 1 then E = 4 .

If b = 2 or b = 0.5 then E = 4.5 .

For large b , E \approx 2 + b \approx \approx b , and for small b , E \approx 2 + 1 / b \approx \approx 1/b .

mass ratio b

force ratio E

0.001

1002.001

0.01

102.01

0.1

12.1

0.2

7.2

0.5

4.5

1.0

4.0

2.0

4.5

5.0

7.2

10.0

12.1

100.0

102.01

1000.0

1002.001

Sun to Jupiter ratio, approximately

1.2e47

1.2e47

Sun to hydrogen atom

For very small m_1 compared to m_2 , the F_? "force" becomes:

F_? \approx F_N / b \approx F_N m_2 / m_1 \approx G \left( \Large { {m_2}^2 \over { r^2 } } \right)

and the acceleration of m_1 is

a_? = F_? / m_1 \approx G \left( \Large { {m_2}^2 \over { m_1 ~ r^2 } } \right) = a_N \times { m_2 / m_1 }

A circular orbit has a centripedal acceleration a = v^2 / r , so the orbital velocity is proportional to the square root of acceleration. 1000 times the acceleration means 32 times the orbital velocity.

The unrestricted 3 body problem is very difficult to solve - approximation and computers are needed, but are good enough to deliver space probes to other planets with parts-per-billion accuracy. My colleague's "approximation" is incorrect, yet more difficult to solve.

BadGravity (last edited 2016-06-08 23:37:34 by KeithLofstrom)