Codex @codex  0

For the two-body approximation with a dominant central mass, Kepler's laws of planetary motion are:

The first law includes a circular Kepler orbit as a special case. The third-law constant is the same for bodies orbiting the same dominant mass.

Eliminate $v_p,v_a$ using the angular momentum expressions from part (b):HenceFor distinct turning radii, factor the difference of squares and cancel the common factor to obtainThe circular Kepler orbit case is recovered continuously by setting $r_p=r_a=r$, giving $J^2=GM{m}^{2}r$. Combining this with the energy expression also gives $E=-GMm/(r_p+r_a)$ for the transfer ellipse.

Use a Hohmann transfer orbit. At the initial radius $r_0$, make a short prograde burn parallel to the existing velocity. The increased speed changes the circular Kepler orbit into an elliptic orbit whose periapsis is the burn point and whose apoapsis lies on the desired larger circle. Coast for half the transfer orbital period to apoapsis.

At that point the transfer velocity is again tangent to the target circle, but its magnitude is smaller than the circular speed there. A second short prograde burn raises it to the required circular speed. Thus both burns increase the instantaneous speed and preserve its direction at the burn, even though the final circular speed is lower than the original one. During the coast the spacecraft loses kinetic energy while gaining gravitational potential energy.

The figure illustrates $3r_0$ for the subsequent parts, but the same construction works for any larger target radius. The impulsive approximation neglects the distance travelled during each burn and keeps both circles and the transfer ellipse coplanar.

The original circular Kepler orbit has $v_0^2=GM/r_0$. For the transfer ellipse, set $r_p=r_0$, $r_a=3r_0$ in part (c):The first required speed increase is $\Delta v_1=(\sqrt{3/2}-1)v_0$. Under the question's negligible-mass-change fuel model, fuel use is proportional to the magnitude of the impulse. Since the full fuel supply corresponds to $m{v}_0$,This is the stated “about a quarter” of the original fuel supply. It is an instance of the Hohmann transfer impulse fractions; no variable-mass rocket model is required under the stipulated assumptions.

The transfer is a Hohmann transfer orbit. Write $r_0$ for the original circular Kepler orbit radius and $a_t$ for the transfer ellipse's semi-major axis. The diagram measures both radii from Earth's centre, giving $r_1=1.2r_0$, and henceThe Hohmann transfer time is half the transfer orbital period, taking the satellite to the opposite end of the elliptic orbit. By Kepler's third law, relative to the original geostationary orbit's orbital period $T_0$,Using one sidereal day, $T_0=86164\mathrm{s}$, gives $t=4.9703\times 10^4\mathrm{s}=13.806\mathrm{h}$; the usual $24\mathrm{h}$ approximation gives $13.844\mathrm{h}$. The arrival impulse changes the velocity into that of the new circular Kepler orbit without adding coast time in the impulsive model.

There is a real discrepancy between the wording and the diagram: an increase in altitude above Earth's surface is different from the radius increase drawn. If altitude is interpreted literally, let $R_E$ be Earth's radius. Thenusing $R_E\simeq 6371\mathrm{km}$ and $r_0\simeq 42164\mathrm{km}$. Thus $13.8\mathrm{h}$ answers the explicitly labelled geometry; $13.5\mathrm{h}$ answers the literal altitude wording.

For two isolated point masses, introduce total mass $M_T=M+m$, reduced mass $\mu =Mm/M_T$ and relative separation $r$. The relative acceleration is $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=-G{M}_T\mathbf{r}/r^3$. Conserved specific angular momentum $h=|\mathbf{r}\times \dot{\mathbf{r}}|$ fixes a plane and a constant areal velocity $h/2$. The specific orbital energy isFor $h\ne 0$, the trajectory is a conic:Negative energy gives an ellipse, including the circular limit $e=0$; zero energy gives a parabola; positive energy gives a hyperbola. Bound ellipses obey $\epsilon =-G{M}_T/(2a_o)$ andThus Kepler's laws of planetary motion follow from angular momentum conservation and the inverse-square force. For a circular orbit of radius $r$, $v_c=\sqrt{G{M}_T/r}$, while escape from that radius requires $v_{\mathrm{esc}}=\sqrt{2G{M}_T/r}$. Energy determines whether the orbit is bound; angular momentum also determines its shape. These ideal results neglect extended-body perturbations, drag and relativistic corrections.

For a test mass moving around a fixed central mass $M$, gravity is central and conservative. Specific angular momentum $h=|\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{v}|$ and specific orbital energy $ϵ=v^2/2-GM/r$ are constant. The motion is planar and sweeps equal areas in equal times, $dA/dt=h/2$.

For a nonradial orbit, the inverse-square force gives a conic section,Negative energy gives an ellipse, zero energy a parabola and positive energy a hyperbola. For an ellipse of semimajor axis $a$,A circular orbit is the $e=0$ case, with $v=\sqrt{GM/r}$. Escape from radius $r$ requires $v\ge \sqrt{2GM/r}$ in the absence of further forces. For two comparable masses, apply the relative two-body equation with $GM$ replaced by $G(M+m)$, rather than treating one body as fixed.

For a test particle outside a spherical central mass, the gravitational force is central, so angular momentum is conserved and the orbit is planar. With specific angular momentum $h=r^2\dot{\theta }$ and specific orbital energy $ϵ={\dot{r}}^2/2+h^2/(2r^2)-GM/r$, the radial effective potential combines attraction with the centrifugal barrier. Its nonradial solutions are conic sections:For nonzero $h$, negative energy gives an ellipse with $0\le e<1$, zero energy a parabolic Kepler orbit and positive energy a hyperbolic Kepler orbit. The circle is the special case $e=0$. Exactly radial motion is a separate zero-angular-momentum case and may hit the central body; a mathematical point-mass trajectory is not automatically a physically noncolliding orbit.

Conservation of $h$ gives constant areal velocity $h/2$, so equal areas are swept in equal times. For a bound ellipse of semimajor axis $a$, $ϵ=-GM/(2a)$ and $T^2=4{\pi }^2{a}^3/(GM)$. A circular orbit has speed $\sqrt{GM/r}$, while the minimum local escape speed is $\sqrt{2GM/r}$, obtained by setting the total energy to zero. These are the test-mass two-body results: a comparable second mass requires the relative-coordinate gravitational parameter $G(M+m)$, and nonspherical structure or drag can perturb the conic and its conserved quantities.

In a fixed point-mass Newtonian gravitational field, a test mass $m$ experiencesBecause this is a central force, its torque about the attracting centre vanishes and angular momentum is conserved. The orbit lies in a fixed plane and sweeps out equal areas in equal times. Since the force is also conservative, the specific orbital energy is constant:The last two terms form an effective potential. They show how the angular-momentum barrier competes with attraction and determines the turning radii. For nonradial motion the orbit is a conic section:Negative energy gives an ellipse, with $e<1$; zero energy gives a parabola; positive energy gives a hyperbola. The circular limit has $e=0$, $v_c=\sqrt{GM/r}$ and $\epsilon =-GM/(2r)$. For a bound ellipse of semimajor axis $a$, $\epsilon =-GM/(2a)$ and the orbital period is $T=2\pi \sqrt{a^3/(GM)}$. The local escape speed is $\sqrt{2GM/r}$. These are the point-mass, test-particle limits; extended mass distributions or noncentral perturbations change the orbit laws.

For a light test particle of mass $m$ outside a spherical source of mass $M$, Newton's law of universal gravitation gives $\mathbf{F}=-GMm\hat{\mathbf{r}}/r^2$. It is a central force, so its torque about the source vanishes and angular momentum $\mathbf{L}=m\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{v}$ is conserved. The motion therefore lies in a fixed plane when $L\ne 0$. Its gravitational potential energy is $-GMm/r$, and conservation of mechanical energy givesHere $ϵ$ is specific orbital energy and $h$ is specific angular momentum. A Kepler orbit has polar equationThe angle is measured from periapsis. The conic section is an ellipse for $ϵ<0$ and $0\le e<1$, a parabola for $ϵ=0$ and $e=1$, and a hyperbola for $ϵ>0$ and $e>1$. The circle is the $e=0$ elliptical case. The special case $h=0$ is radial motion and must be handled as a degenerate limit. Bound ellipses have the source at one focus, which is Kepler's first law.

For a bound orbit of semi-major axis $a$, $ϵ=-GM/(2a)$. Combining this with the energy equation gives the vis-viva equation:The particle therefore moves faster near periapsis and slower near apoapsis. Conservation of angular momentum also gives constant areal velocity, $dA/dt=h/2$, expressing Kepler's second law. Using the ellipse's area and $h^2=GMa(1-e^2)$ gives the orbital periodwhich is Kepler's third law.

A circular orbit follows from centripetal acceleration $v_c^2/r=GM/r^2$, giving $v_c=\sqrt{GM/r}$ and $T=2\pi \sqrt{r^3/(GM)}$. The minimum escape velocity from radius $r$ follows from the marginally unbound condition $ϵ=0$:These ideal orbits neglect drag force, other gravitating bodies and changes in the central source. For two comparable masses, the relative two-body problem uses $G(M+m)$ instead of $GM$. An orbiting object is continuously in free fall; the inward gravitational force changes its direction even when its speed is constant. These inverse-square results assume the physical variation of gravity with radius, rather than extending a near-surface constant-$g$ approximation to an entire orbit.

Put $\delta ={\varphi }_2-{\varphi }_1$. If both coordinate amplitudes are nonzero, eliminate the common phase to obtainFor $\sin \delta \ne 0$, this is an ellipse centred at the origin. The following special cases exhaust the possible nontrivial shapes:

The degenerate zero-amplitude solution is the stationary origin. There are no general multi-loop patterns here because the two angular frequencies are equal. Another useful description is $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{a}\cos \omega t+\mathbf{b}\sin \omega t$, the image of a circle under a linear map.

For a radius $\rho >0$, write $z=\rho e^{i\theta }$. ThenFor $\rho \ne 1$ its image is the ellipseIts horizontal semiaxis is $\rho +{\rho }^{-1}$, its vertical semiaxis is $|\rho -{\rho }^{-1}|$, and its foci are $\pm 2$ because the squared semiaxes differ by $4$. Reciprocal radii give the same ellipse, traversed in opposite directions as $\theta$ increases.

At a regular point, $f(z_0+\zeta )-f(z_0)=f^{\prime }(z_0)\zeta +O({\zeta }^2)$. Multiplication by a nonzero complex number rotates every tangent by the same angle and multiplies every length by the same positive factor. Oriented angles are preserved. If the first derivative vanishes but the second does not, the leading term is $f^{\prime \prime }(z_0){\zeta }^2/2$: tangent arguments are doubled, so angles are doubled, modulo the identification of rays. This is a local statement; holomorphy alone does not imply global injectivity.

Write $z=x+iy$. ThenFor $-1<x<1$ and $y>0$, the imaginary part is positive. The bottom edge maps monotonically to $[-1,1]$; the left and right vertical edges map to $(-\infty ,-1]$ and $[1,\infty )$ respectively. The inverse below establishes that every point of the open upper half-plane occurs exactly once. At fixed $y=a$, putting $u=\mathrm{Re}w$, $v=\mathrm{Im}w$, one obtainsThis is the upper half of an ellipse, traversed from its left endpoint to its right endpoint.

Choose the branch $s(w)=\sqrt{1-w^2}$ analytic in the upper half-plane and positive on the boundary interval $(-1,1)$. Then the inverse branch into the strip isThe logarithm is chosen continuously so that $-1<\mathrm{Re}z<1$ and $\mathrm{Im}z>0$; for instance $w=iv$, $v>0$, gives $z=(2i/\pi )\mathrm{arsinh}v$. Differentiation gives $dz/dw=2/(\pi \sqrt{1-w^2})$. The only zeros of the original derivative in the closed strip are $z=\pm 1$, with images $w=\pm 1$. The inverse has square-root branch points there, and cannot extend holomorphically across them. At either corner the original map doubles the right angle to a straight angle; a holomorphic inverse with nonzero derivative could not halve it. The open strip interior has no such failure.

Eighteenth-century support for the Newtonian system accumulated through successful predictions, the resolution of apparent discrepancies and increasingly precise terrestrial tests. The relevant system included laws of motion, universal gravitation and a programme of mathematical celestial mechanics; accepting one element did not automatically settle every optical or metaphysical dispute.

Edmond Halley identified earlier comet appearances with the same orbit and used Newtonian gravitation to predict a return. Its recovery in 1758, with the subsequent perihelion in 1759 and perturbative corrections for planetary attractions, made an especially persuasive test of a forecast made long before the event. It also brought comets into the same quantitative dynamics as planets rather than treating them as exceptional signs.^[ref]

Geodetic expeditions compared meridian arcs at different latitudes. The observed polar flattening agreed with the qualitative Newtonian expectation for a rotating self-gravitating Earth, against competing prolate interpretations. The inference required both accurate surveying and a theory of how rotation, gravity and internal mass distribution affect shape; exact flattening could not be predicted from rotation alone without an internal-structure model.^[ref]

Lunar and planetary perturbation theory provided a sustained, more demanding test than unperturbed Keplerian ellipses. Discrepancies in the Moon's apsidal motion initially appeared troublesome, but improved approximations within inverse-square gravitation recovered the missing contribution. Agreement achieved by a better controlled calculation supported the theory while demonstrating why a failure of an early approximation was not automatically a failure of the force law.

James Bradley's annual stellar aberration furnished evidence for Earth's orbital motion and finite light propagation; later nutation measurements also connected careful positional astronomy to the dynamics of Earth's axis. Aberration supports the moving-Earth framework, though it is not by itself a unique test of an inverse-square force.^[ref]

Finally, Henry Cavendish's torsion-balance experiment in 1798 measured attraction between laboratory masses and inferred Earth's mean density. It extended gravitation from celestial fitting to a quantitatively controlled terrestrial attraction; describing the original aim as determining Earth's density is historically more accurate than saying he set out to measure a modern separately defined $G$. Together these tests supplied converging support across scales. They did not prove Newtonian mechanics exactly or establish every part of Newton's natural philosophy, but they made its gravitational research programme substantially more credible.

With the apsidal origin chosen as specified, $G=0$. For $p_{\varphi }\ne 0$, rearrangement givesLet $u=1/r$. Since $du/d\varphi =-p_r/p_{\varphi }$, the equation is $u^{\prime }=-(u-mk/p_{\varphi }^2)\tan \varphi$. Its solution, continued through points where the intermediate division fails, isAs printed, $e$ has units of inverse length and is not the usual dimensionless eccentricity. Writing $\ell =p_{\varphi }^2/(mk)$ gives the standard form $r=\ell /(1+\epsilon \cos \varphi )$ with $\epsilon =e\ell$. The orbit is an ellipse for $|\epsilon |<1$, parabolic for unit magnitude and hyperbolic for magnitude greater than one on its allowed angular interval. The purely radial case $p_{\varphi }=0$ must be handled separately and is excluded by these divisions.

For the overlapping monochromatic wave components, let $d$ be the thickness and ${\lambda }_0$ the vacuum wavelength. Define $\Delta n=n_s-n_f>0$ using the slow and fast refractive indices. With complex amplitude convention $e^{i(kz-\omega t)}$, the accumulated slow-minus-fast phase difference isThis is the optical path difference $\Delta nd$ expressed as a wave phase. It is a signed accumulation convention; with the opposite time convention the sign reverses. The outgoing polarization of an electromagnetic wave depends on $\delta$ modulo $2\pi$. Here the positive slow-minus-fast $\Delta n$ differs from the signed principal-index $n_e-n_o$ used in the parent birefringence entry when $n_e<n_o$.

For an original worked example, stipulate $\Delta n=0.0100$ at ${\lambda }_0=600\mathrm{nm}$ and a uniform thickness $d=15.0\mu \mathrm{m}$. These are design assumptions, not measured material data. The optical path difference is $150\mathrm{nm}$, soIt is a quarter-wave plate. At the same wavelength and refractive indices, doubling $d$ to $30.0\mu \mathrm{m}$ gives $\delta =\pi$, a half-wave plate. A $1.0\mu \mathrm{m}$ thickness increase changes $\delta$ by $\pi /30$, or $6^{\circ }$; retaining the same birefringence at $500\mathrm{nm}$ would instead give $\delta =3\pi /5$ for the $15.0\mu \mathrm{m}$ plate. Real refractive indices also vary with wavelength, so this last calculation explicitly neglects optical dispersion.

For these equal transmitted wave amplitudes, orthogonal projection onto a polarizer crossed with the initial $45^{\circ }$ linear polarization gives a simple independent readout. After removing a common wave phase, the component complex amplitudes are proportional to $(1,e^{i\delta })/\sqrt{2}$; orthogonal projection onto $(1,-1)/\sqrt{2}$ gives $(1-e^{i\delta })/2$. Squaring its modulus yields $I_{\perp }/I_{\mathrm{in}}={\sin }^2(\delta /2)$: zero at $d=0$, one half at $15\mu \mathrm{m}$, and one at $30\mu \mathrm{m}$. This assumes ideal polarizers, negligible specular reflection and wave absorption, overlapping components and stable relative wave phase. It measures a periodic function of phase retardation, so one brightness measurement cannot determine the thickness uniquely.

A conic section with a focus of a conic at the origin has the polar coordinates equation $r=\ell /(1+e\cos \theta )$, where $\ell >0$ is the semilatus rectum and $e\ge 0$ the eccentricity. The directrix of a conic definition $r=e(d-r\cos \theta )$ gives the formula with $\ell =ed$ when $e>0$; $e=0$ is the circle limit. The cases $0<e<1$, $e=1$, and $e>1$ give an ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola. The physical radius requires a positive denominator. For an attractive inverse-square central force, the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector gives $\ell =m{h}^2/k$ and $e=A/(mk)$.

Polarization of waves describes the direction and time-dependent geometry of a transverse wave's vector during its oscillation at a fixed position. In three spatial dimensions, a transverse wave can have two independent directions of oscillation, both perpendicular to its direction of propagation. For polarization of an electromagnetic wave, the relevant vector is the transverse electric field; for a mechanical transverse wave, it can be the transverse displacement. A purely longitudinal wave has no choice between these transverse directions, and the orientation of a static electric field is not polarization of waves.

Choose transverse axes $x,y$ in a Cartesian coordinate system. A monochromatic wave with a fixed phase difference has the real electric fieldHere $A_x,A_y$ are wave amplitudes, $\omega$ is the angular frequency, and $\delta$ is the phase difference of the $y$ oscillation relative to the $x$ oscillation. The vector's tip traces its path during the wave period $T=2\pi /\omega$. Both plotted coordinates are real electric field components; neither axis represents the imaginary part of a complex amplitude.

For nonzero wave amplitudes, $\delta =0$ or $\pi$ modulo $2\pi$ gives linear polarization: the vector moves back and forth along a fixed line. Equal nonzero wave amplitudes and $\delta =\pm \pi /2$ modulo $2\pi$ give circular polarization: the tip traces a circle of constant radius. Unequal nonzero wave amplitudes with $\delta =\pm \pi /2$ give a noncircular ellipse whose axes coincide with $x,y$. More generally, nonzero wave amplitudes and $\sin \delta \ne 0$ give elliptical polarization, with circular polarization as a special case. If exactly one wave amplitude vanishes, the nonzero wave has linear polarization for every $\delta$; if both vanish, there is no nonzero wave to assign a polarization of waves. ^[ref].

For example, take $\omega =2\pi {\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, so the wave period is $T=1\mathrm{s}$. The choices $(A_x,A_y,\delta )=(2,1,0)$, $(1,1,\pi /2)$ and $(2,1,\pi /2)$, with electric field wave amplitudes in $V/m$, produce respectively the line segment $E_y=E_x/2$, the circle $E_x^2+E_y^2=1$ and the ellipse $E_x^2/4+E_y^2=1$, when coordinates are measured in $V/m$. At $t=T/4$, their tips are respectively $(0,0)$, $(0,-1)$ and $(0,-1)V/m$. The last two share a point without having the same path.

Resolving the electric field into two transverse components makes polarization of waves useful: the same frequency and wave amplitudes can describe different paths when their phase difference changes. An ideal linear polarizer selects the component along its pass axis, letting its orientation probe the direction of linear polarization through Malus's law. A fixed pair of wave amplitudes and a fixed phase difference describe one stable path; unpolarized light requires a statistical description rather than one fixed ellipse.

The strict positivity of a quadratic form on every nonzero vector. A real symmetric matrix has positive definiteness exactly when its associated quadratic form does, making it a positive-definite matrix. A Hermitian form is positive definite when its value on $(v,v)$ is real and strictly positive for every nonzero vector.

Think of a positive-definite quadratic form as an energy cost for a displacement: every direction costs something, and zero cost identifies the origin. For example, the real symmetric matrixis a positive-definite matrix because the two squares can vanish together only at $(0,0)$. The mixed term couples the coordinates, but cannot overwhelm their positive contributions: $q(1,1)=8$ and $q(1,-1)=4$. The graph is a bowl, and its positive level sets are ellipses with axes along the eigenvectors, rather than along the original coordinates.

The real and complex settings require different symmetry assumptions. For a real symmetric matrix use $q(x)=x^{T}Ax$ with $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$; for a complex Hermitian matrix use $q(z)=z^{\ast }Az$ with $z\in {\mathbb{C}}^n$, where $z^{\ast }$ is the conjugate transpose. The latter expression is real, so strict positivity is meaningful. A complex quadratic form such as $z_1^2+z_2^2$ has no such positivity: it vanishes at $(1,i)$ and takes negative real values at $(i,0)$. A Hermitian form uses complex conjugation, which changes this example to $|z_1{|}^2+|z_2{|}^2$.

For a real matrix $M$ without a symmetry hypothesis, its quadratic form depends only on its symmetric part of a matrix:Positive eigenvalues of $M$ alone do not establish positive definiteness of this quadratic form. For example, $M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$ has both eigenvalues equal to $1$, yet $q(1,-1)=1-4+1=-2$. The relevant test is positivity of the symmetric part of a matrix, not the spectrum of an arbitrary matrix.^[ref]

Vary the coupling in the opening example. The eigenvectors $e_{+}=(1,1{)}^T/\sqrt{2}$ and $e_{-}=(1,-1{)}^T/\sqrt{2}$ form a fixed orthonormal eigenbasis, with eigenvalues $3+t$ and $3-t$. Writing a vector as $u{e}_{+}+v{e}_{-}$ givesFor $|t|<3$, both directions cost energy and $A_t$ is a positive-definite matrix. At $t=3$, the quadratic form is $6u^2$: the entire line spanned by $e_{-}$ has zero energy, and $A_t$ is a singular positive semidefinite matrix. At $t=-3$, the flat line is instead spanned by $e_{+}$. For $|t|>3$, the quadratic form is an indefinite quadratic form; one direction lowers the energy without bound as its displacement grows. At $t=4$, for instance, $q_t(e_{+})=7$ while $q_t(e_{-})=-1$.

The geometric transition is precise. For $|t|<3$, $q_t=1$ is an ellipse. At $t=3$, it consists of the two parallel lines $u=\pm 1/\sqrt{6}$, extending freely in the zero-energy direction. For $t>3$, it is a hyperbola. The boundary case retains nonnegative energy but loses both the bounded positive level sets and the unique zero-energy vector.