Shouldn't planets have to move in their orbits even if Sun disappear?
Since the gravitational force of the sun is a central acting force, the torque on an orbiting body about that center is zero. But if the sun were to hypothetically disappear, the torque would remain zero. This would mean that angular momentum of the orbiting body should be conserved, but I find everywhere that planets will move in a straight line tangentially. What is wrong in my reasoning?
newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity rotational-dynamics reference-frames orbital-motion
|
show 3 more comments
Since the gravitational force of the sun is a central acting force, the torque on an orbiting body about that center is zero. But if the sun were to hypothetically disappear, the torque would remain zero. This would mean that angular momentum of the orbiting body should be conserved, but I find everywhere that planets will move in a straight line tangentially. What is wrong in my reasoning?
newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity rotational-dynamics reference-frames orbital-motion
3
"what's wrong in my reasoning?" - wouldn't the Sun disappearing violate one or more conservation laws?
– Hal Hollis
1 hour ago
Have you tried calculating the angular momentum of an object moving in a straight line?
– By Symmetry
1 hour ago
@HalHollis It seems like the OP is asking about a hypothetical scenario in order to understand something about torque and angular momentum. It's a typical thought experiment used to teach about gravity and centripetal forces as well. I don't see anything wrong with the question, even if it involves a hypothetical scenario whose initiation is not physically realizable. If it makes you (or others) feel better, just imagine a ball attached to a rope spinning on a frictionless horizonal surface, and then we cut the rope.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens, but my point is that the OP begins by stipulating something that violates one or more conservation laws and then draws a conclusion based on conservation laws holding. That, it seems to me, is a significant flaw in reasoning.
– Hal Hollis
53 mins ago
@HalHollis They are obviously asking about their reasoning dealing with torque and angular momentum, not about the validity of the hypothetical scenario itself. You're right that the scenario is hypothetical, but pointing this out doesn't really help the OP here.
– Aaron Stevens
47 mins ago
|
show 3 more comments
Since the gravitational force of the sun is a central acting force, the torque on an orbiting body about that center is zero. But if the sun were to hypothetically disappear, the torque would remain zero. This would mean that angular momentum of the orbiting body should be conserved, but I find everywhere that planets will move in a straight line tangentially. What is wrong in my reasoning?
newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity rotational-dynamics reference-frames orbital-motion
Since the gravitational force of the sun is a central acting force, the torque on an orbiting body about that center is zero. But if the sun were to hypothetically disappear, the torque would remain zero. This would mean that angular momentum of the orbiting body should be conserved, but I find everywhere that planets will move in a straight line tangentially. What is wrong in my reasoning?
newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity rotational-dynamics reference-frames orbital-motion
newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity rotational-dynamics reference-frames orbital-motion
edited 42 mins ago
Aaron Stevens
9,16731640
9,16731640
asked 2 hours ago
Piyush Galav
122
122
3
"what's wrong in my reasoning?" - wouldn't the Sun disappearing violate one or more conservation laws?
– Hal Hollis
1 hour ago
Have you tried calculating the angular momentum of an object moving in a straight line?
– By Symmetry
1 hour ago
@HalHollis It seems like the OP is asking about a hypothetical scenario in order to understand something about torque and angular momentum. It's a typical thought experiment used to teach about gravity and centripetal forces as well. I don't see anything wrong with the question, even if it involves a hypothetical scenario whose initiation is not physically realizable. If it makes you (or others) feel better, just imagine a ball attached to a rope spinning on a frictionless horizonal surface, and then we cut the rope.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens, but my point is that the OP begins by stipulating something that violates one or more conservation laws and then draws a conclusion based on conservation laws holding. That, it seems to me, is a significant flaw in reasoning.
– Hal Hollis
53 mins ago
@HalHollis They are obviously asking about their reasoning dealing with torque and angular momentum, not about the validity of the hypothetical scenario itself. You're right that the scenario is hypothetical, but pointing this out doesn't really help the OP here.
– Aaron Stevens
47 mins ago
|
show 3 more comments
3
"what's wrong in my reasoning?" - wouldn't the Sun disappearing violate one or more conservation laws?
– Hal Hollis
1 hour ago
Have you tried calculating the angular momentum of an object moving in a straight line?
– By Symmetry
1 hour ago
@HalHollis It seems like the OP is asking about a hypothetical scenario in order to understand something about torque and angular momentum. It's a typical thought experiment used to teach about gravity and centripetal forces as well. I don't see anything wrong with the question, even if it involves a hypothetical scenario whose initiation is not physically realizable. If it makes you (or others) feel better, just imagine a ball attached to a rope spinning on a frictionless horizonal surface, and then we cut the rope.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens, but my point is that the OP begins by stipulating something that violates one or more conservation laws and then draws a conclusion based on conservation laws holding. That, it seems to me, is a significant flaw in reasoning.
– Hal Hollis
53 mins ago
@HalHollis They are obviously asking about their reasoning dealing with torque and angular momentum, not about the validity of the hypothetical scenario itself. You're right that the scenario is hypothetical, but pointing this out doesn't really help the OP here.
– Aaron Stevens
47 mins ago
3
3
"what's wrong in my reasoning?" - wouldn't the Sun disappearing violate one or more conservation laws?
– Hal Hollis
1 hour ago
"what's wrong in my reasoning?" - wouldn't the Sun disappearing violate one or more conservation laws?
– Hal Hollis
1 hour ago
Have you tried calculating the angular momentum of an object moving in a straight line?
– By Symmetry
1 hour ago
Have you tried calculating the angular momentum of an object moving in a straight line?
– By Symmetry
1 hour ago
@HalHollis It seems like the OP is asking about a hypothetical scenario in order to understand something about torque and angular momentum. It's a typical thought experiment used to teach about gravity and centripetal forces as well. I don't see anything wrong with the question, even if it involves a hypothetical scenario whose initiation is not physically realizable. If it makes you (or others) feel better, just imagine a ball attached to a rope spinning on a frictionless horizonal surface, and then we cut the rope.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@HalHollis It seems like the OP is asking about a hypothetical scenario in order to understand something about torque and angular momentum. It's a typical thought experiment used to teach about gravity and centripetal forces as well. I don't see anything wrong with the question, even if it involves a hypothetical scenario whose initiation is not physically realizable. If it makes you (or others) feel better, just imagine a ball attached to a rope spinning on a frictionless horizonal surface, and then we cut the rope.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens, but my point is that the OP begins by stipulating something that violates one or more conservation laws and then draws a conclusion based on conservation laws holding. That, it seems to me, is a significant flaw in reasoning.
– Hal Hollis
53 mins ago
@AaronStevens, but my point is that the OP begins by stipulating something that violates one or more conservation laws and then draws a conclusion based on conservation laws holding. That, it seems to me, is a significant flaw in reasoning.
– Hal Hollis
53 mins ago
@HalHollis They are obviously asking about their reasoning dealing with torque and angular momentum, not about the validity of the hypothetical scenario itself. You're right that the scenario is hypothetical, but pointing this out doesn't really help the OP here.
– Aaron Stevens
47 mins ago
@HalHollis They are obviously asking about their reasoning dealing with torque and angular momentum, not about the validity of the hypothetical scenario itself. You're right that the scenario is hypothetical, but pointing this out doesn't really help the OP here.
– Aaron Stevens
47 mins ago
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The flaw in your reasoning is thinking that straight line motion at constant velocity does not constitute constant angular momentum about some point, but it actually does.
Angular momentum is given by
$$mathbf L=mathbf rtimesmathbf p$$
Without loss of generality, let's assume our object is moving along the line $y=1$ in the x-y plane, and we are looking at the angular momentum about the origin. Then our angular momentum must always be perpendicular to the x-y plane, so it will be sufficient to just look at the magnitude of the angular momentum
$$L=rpsintheta$$
where $theta$ is the angle between the position vector and the momentum vector (which is the angle between the position vector and the x-axis based on the set up above).
Now, since there are no forces acting on our object, $p$ is constant. Also, $rsintheta$ is just the constant $y=1$ value given by the line the object is moving along. Therefore, it must be that $L$ is constant.
This shows that no torque (conserved angular momentum) is not enough to uniquely determine how the motion behaves. In orbit, there is still a net force acting on our object. Without gravity, there is no net force. The motions are different.
add a comment |
The angular momentum of each planet is indeed conserved, but that merely means that each planet will keep on rotating around its own axis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_period.
The planets would continue straight along the tangential line of their orbit from their position at the time of the Suns disappearance. The gravitational force exerted by the Sun would no longer be there to keep the planets in their orbits.
The planets in the Solar system are also exerting forces on each other, so the lines will not be mathematically straight, and depending on where the planets were in their orbits at the time of the Suns disappearance, a lot of different things could happen later on.
New contributor
add a comment |
The planets will continue moving with the momentum they have at the moment the Sun disappears, apart from mutual attraction. These orbitals conserve planetary angular momentum is conserved. This is clear from the formula $L = vec r times vec p$. $r sin theta$ and $mv$ remain constant after such an event.
The presence of gravity means that the orbit has to be conical to conserve angular momentum, the ellipticity depending on a combination of L and energy. In the absence of gravity straight inertial movement does the job.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452237%2fshouldnt-planets-have-to-move-in-their-orbits-even-if-sun-disappear%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The flaw in your reasoning is thinking that straight line motion at constant velocity does not constitute constant angular momentum about some point, but it actually does.
Angular momentum is given by
$$mathbf L=mathbf rtimesmathbf p$$
Without loss of generality, let's assume our object is moving along the line $y=1$ in the x-y plane, and we are looking at the angular momentum about the origin. Then our angular momentum must always be perpendicular to the x-y plane, so it will be sufficient to just look at the magnitude of the angular momentum
$$L=rpsintheta$$
where $theta$ is the angle between the position vector and the momentum vector (which is the angle between the position vector and the x-axis based on the set up above).
Now, since there are no forces acting on our object, $p$ is constant. Also, $rsintheta$ is just the constant $y=1$ value given by the line the object is moving along. Therefore, it must be that $L$ is constant.
This shows that no torque (conserved angular momentum) is not enough to uniquely determine how the motion behaves. In orbit, there is still a net force acting on our object. Without gravity, there is no net force. The motions are different.
add a comment |
The flaw in your reasoning is thinking that straight line motion at constant velocity does not constitute constant angular momentum about some point, but it actually does.
Angular momentum is given by
$$mathbf L=mathbf rtimesmathbf p$$
Without loss of generality, let's assume our object is moving along the line $y=1$ in the x-y plane, and we are looking at the angular momentum about the origin. Then our angular momentum must always be perpendicular to the x-y plane, so it will be sufficient to just look at the magnitude of the angular momentum
$$L=rpsintheta$$
where $theta$ is the angle between the position vector and the momentum vector (which is the angle between the position vector and the x-axis based on the set up above).
Now, since there are no forces acting on our object, $p$ is constant. Also, $rsintheta$ is just the constant $y=1$ value given by the line the object is moving along. Therefore, it must be that $L$ is constant.
This shows that no torque (conserved angular momentum) is not enough to uniquely determine how the motion behaves. In orbit, there is still a net force acting on our object. Without gravity, there is no net force. The motions are different.
add a comment |
The flaw in your reasoning is thinking that straight line motion at constant velocity does not constitute constant angular momentum about some point, but it actually does.
Angular momentum is given by
$$mathbf L=mathbf rtimesmathbf p$$
Without loss of generality, let's assume our object is moving along the line $y=1$ in the x-y plane, and we are looking at the angular momentum about the origin. Then our angular momentum must always be perpendicular to the x-y plane, so it will be sufficient to just look at the magnitude of the angular momentum
$$L=rpsintheta$$
where $theta$ is the angle between the position vector and the momentum vector (which is the angle between the position vector and the x-axis based on the set up above).
Now, since there are no forces acting on our object, $p$ is constant. Also, $rsintheta$ is just the constant $y=1$ value given by the line the object is moving along. Therefore, it must be that $L$ is constant.
This shows that no torque (conserved angular momentum) is not enough to uniquely determine how the motion behaves. In orbit, there is still a net force acting on our object. Without gravity, there is no net force. The motions are different.
The flaw in your reasoning is thinking that straight line motion at constant velocity does not constitute constant angular momentum about some point, but it actually does.
Angular momentum is given by
$$mathbf L=mathbf rtimesmathbf p$$
Without loss of generality, let's assume our object is moving along the line $y=1$ in the x-y plane, and we are looking at the angular momentum about the origin. Then our angular momentum must always be perpendicular to the x-y plane, so it will be sufficient to just look at the magnitude of the angular momentum
$$L=rpsintheta$$
where $theta$ is the angle between the position vector and the momentum vector (which is the angle between the position vector and the x-axis based on the set up above).
Now, since there are no forces acting on our object, $p$ is constant. Also, $rsintheta$ is just the constant $y=1$ value given by the line the object is moving along. Therefore, it must be that $L$ is constant.
This shows that no torque (conserved angular momentum) is not enough to uniquely determine how the motion behaves. In orbit, there is still a net force acting on our object. Without gravity, there is no net force. The motions are different.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Aaron Stevens
9,16731640
9,16731640
add a comment |
add a comment |
The angular momentum of each planet is indeed conserved, but that merely means that each planet will keep on rotating around its own axis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_period.
The planets would continue straight along the tangential line of their orbit from their position at the time of the Suns disappearance. The gravitational force exerted by the Sun would no longer be there to keep the planets in their orbits.
The planets in the Solar system are also exerting forces on each other, so the lines will not be mathematically straight, and depending on where the planets were in their orbits at the time of the Suns disappearance, a lot of different things could happen later on.
New contributor
add a comment |
The angular momentum of each planet is indeed conserved, but that merely means that each planet will keep on rotating around its own axis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_period.
The planets would continue straight along the tangential line of their orbit from their position at the time of the Suns disappearance. The gravitational force exerted by the Sun would no longer be there to keep the planets in their orbits.
The planets in the Solar system are also exerting forces on each other, so the lines will not be mathematically straight, and depending on where the planets were in their orbits at the time of the Suns disappearance, a lot of different things could happen later on.
New contributor
add a comment |
The angular momentum of each planet is indeed conserved, but that merely means that each planet will keep on rotating around its own axis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_period.
The planets would continue straight along the tangential line of their orbit from their position at the time of the Suns disappearance. The gravitational force exerted by the Sun would no longer be there to keep the planets in their orbits.
The planets in the Solar system are also exerting forces on each other, so the lines will not be mathematically straight, and depending on where the planets were in their orbits at the time of the Suns disappearance, a lot of different things could happen later on.
New contributor
The angular momentum of each planet is indeed conserved, but that merely means that each planet will keep on rotating around its own axis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_period.
The planets would continue straight along the tangential line of their orbit from their position at the time of the Suns disappearance. The gravitational force exerted by the Sun would no longer be there to keep the planets in their orbits.
The planets in the Solar system are also exerting forces on each other, so the lines will not be mathematically straight, and depending on where the planets were in their orbits at the time of the Suns disappearance, a lot of different things could happen later on.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 1 hour ago
Luhr
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
The planets will continue moving with the momentum they have at the moment the Sun disappears, apart from mutual attraction. These orbitals conserve planetary angular momentum is conserved. This is clear from the formula $L = vec r times vec p$. $r sin theta$ and $mv$ remain constant after such an event.
The presence of gravity means that the orbit has to be conical to conserve angular momentum, the ellipticity depending on a combination of L and energy. In the absence of gravity straight inertial movement does the job.
add a comment |
The planets will continue moving with the momentum they have at the moment the Sun disappears, apart from mutual attraction. These orbitals conserve planetary angular momentum is conserved. This is clear from the formula $L = vec r times vec p$. $r sin theta$ and $mv$ remain constant after such an event.
The presence of gravity means that the orbit has to be conical to conserve angular momentum, the ellipticity depending on a combination of L and energy. In the absence of gravity straight inertial movement does the job.
add a comment |
The planets will continue moving with the momentum they have at the moment the Sun disappears, apart from mutual attraction. These orbitals conserve planetary angular momentum is conserved. This is clear from the formula $L = vec r times vec p$. $r sin theta$ and $mv$ remain constant after such an event.
The presence of gravity means that the orbit has to be conical to conserve angular momentum, the ellipticity depending on a combination of L and energy. In the absence of gravity straight inertial movement does the job.
The planets will continue moving with the momentum they have at the moment the Sun disappears, apart from mutual attraction. These orbitals conserve planetary angular momentum is conserved. This is clear from the formula $L = vec r times vec p$. $r sin theta$ and $mv$ remain constant after such an event.
The presence of gravity means that the orbit has to be conical to conserve angular momentum, the ellipticity depending on a combination of L and energy. In the absence of gravity straight inertial movement does the job.
answered 39 mins ago
my2cts
4,5662617
4,5662617
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452237%2fshouldnt-planets-have-to-move-in-their-orbits-even-if-sun-disappear%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
"what's wrong in my reasoning?" - wouldn't the Sun disappearing violate one or more conservation laws?
– Hal Hollis
1 hour ago
Have you tried calculating the angular momentum of an object moving in a straight line?
– By Symmetry
1 hour ago
@HalHollis It seems like the OP is asking about a hypothetical scenario in order to understand something about torque and angular momentum. It's a typical thought experiment used to teach about gravity and centripetal forces as well. I don't see anything wrong with the question, even if it involves a hypothetical scenario whose initiation is not physically realizable. If it makes you (or others) feel better, just imagine a ball attached to a rope spinning on a frictionless horizonal surface, and then we cut the rope.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens, but my point is that the OP begins by stipulating something that violates one or more conservation laws and then draws a conclusion based on conservation laws holding. That, it seems to me, is a significant flaw in reasoning.
– Hal Hollis
53 mins ago
@HalHollis They are obviously asking about their reasoning dealing with torque and angular momentum, not about the validity of the hypothetical scenario itself. You're right that the scenario is hypothetical, but pointing this out doesn't really help the OP here.
– Aaron Stevens
47 mins ago