Shouldn't planets have to move in their orbits even if Sun disappear?












2














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?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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
















2














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?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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














2












2








2







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?










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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














  • 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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7














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.






share|cite|improve this answer































    0














    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


























      0














      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















        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
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        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









        7














        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer




























          7














          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer


























            7












            7








            7






            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 1 hour ago

























            answered 1 hour ago









            Aaron Stevens

            9,16731640




            9,16731640























                0














                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.























                  0














                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                    0












                    0








                    0






                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    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.







                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer






                    New contributor




                    Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered 1 hour ago









                    Luhr

                    1




                    1




                    New contributor




                    Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Luhr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.























                        0














                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          0














                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            0












                            0








                            0






                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            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.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 39 mins ago









                            my2cts

                            4,5662617




                            4,5662617






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                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.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                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





















































                                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







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                CARDNET

                                Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

                                濃尾地震