I Tong Dynamics: cannot cancel angle from orbit energy expression calculation

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter jds17
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Orbit
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a challenge in deriving the energy expression from David Tong's lectures, specifically the formula E = (mk² / 2l²)(e² - 1). The user struggles to understand how the angle θ cancels out in the energy calculation, despite recognizing that energy is a constant of motion. They initially mismanaged the variables by not expressing the radius r in terms of r₀, θ, and eccentricity. After realizing this oversight, the user plans to revisit the calculation the following day. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly substituting variables in physics calculations.
jds17
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Hi, I love the lectures by David Tong. Usually I can follow his calculations (but I am not yet so far into the lectures...). But one that I just cannot do is the derivation of the energy in (4.16), the expression being ##E = \frac {mk^2} {2 l^2} (e^2 - 1)##, where l is the constant angular momentum of the orbit of the single point particle, m its mass, V(r) = - k/r the expression for the potential and e the eccentricity of the orbit.
I just don't see how using the expression ##\frac {dr} {d\theta} = \frac {r_0 e \sin(\theta)} {(1+e \cos(\theta))^2}## (page 59) in the expression of the energy using the effective potential cancels out the angle ##\theta##. Of course it has to work since the energy is a constant of motion, but no matter what trigonometric manipulations I use, it does not cancel out the angle.
In case it is not so readable I have attached the relevant sections from the lecture
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20240910_232116.jpg
    IMG_20240910_232116.jpg
    32.3 KB · Views: 47
  • IMG_20240910_232129.jpg
    IMG_20240910_232129.jpg
    17 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you cancelling units or dimensions?
An angle is a ratio, it has no dimension.
 
Thanks! I know, the angle is dimensionless, but still the energy cannot depend on the angle.

I just found why I could not continue with the calculation: I left the radius r in the expression for the energy, but I need to expand it in terms of r_0, theta and the eccentricity as well! It is getting late here. I will do the calculation tomorrow.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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