Maximum-separation inertia bounds 2026-10-06
Let be the actual largest pairwise separation of positive masses in their centre of mass frame. The pairwise moment-of-inertia identity gives . Consequently the scalar inertia is comparable to , independently of configuration.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 58 3 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Use the paper's positive binding-energy convention ; the physical Newtonian gravitational potential energy is . Assume positive masses, an isolated system, and no collision during the time interval under consideration. Differentiate half the scalar moment of inertia, , twice:Group the force term into unordered pairs. The force on particle from is ; the two contributions to the virial sum are thereforeAdding them proves the instantaneous virial theorem identityNo time average is needed for this form. A vanishing average of would require additional boundedness assumptions.
For the pairwise moment-of-inertia identity, expand the squared pair distances:The last term vanishes in the centre of mass frame, givingLet , and label the two smallest masses . If , every term in is at most , so . One pair attains , and its mass product is at least , so . HenceThese constants show the minimum-separation binding-energy bounds: inverse binding energy is comparable to the nearest-pair distance, independently of configuration.
Similarly, every separation is at most and at least one pair attains . The pairwise identity gives the maximum-separation inertia boundsBoth lower bounds rely on actual extremal separations, rather than an arbitrary numerical lower or upper estimate for all the pair distances.
Negative energy does not imply a positive lower bound on the minimum separation. The printed request is false if it is meant to exclude close approaches or collisions; the trivial bound says nothing of that kind. In fact and give , which, combined with , proves the negative-energy minimum-separation upper boundThis ensures at least one close pair, not confinement of every particle or prevention of collision.
An explicit negative-energy gravitational collision is a pair initially at rest with separation . Its total energy is . For reduced mass , its relative radial equation isThe separation decreases to zero in the finite timeBefore that time the motion is a regular Newtonian solution, yet its separation has no positive infimum. Even at fixed negative energy, bound Kepler orbits with eccentricity approaching one have arbitrarily small pericentre distance. Thus a missing angular momentum or collision-exclusion hypothesis cannot be supplied by the energy sign alone.
For , the instantaneous virial theorem gives . Integrating twice from any regular time givesUsing , obtain the positive-energy linear diameter growth boundwhenever the numerator is nonnegative. Consequently, for a solution existing for arbitrarily large future times,This is the precise at-least-linear expansion statement. It does not assert that is monotone at every instant, nor that all individual particles escape. The large-time conclusion presupposes continued existence of the trajectory; the inequality itself holds on every nonsingular time interval.
Virial theorem derivation and history 2026-10-14
The proof is a single time derivative. Apply the product rule to each dot product and use Newton's second law:Integrating from to gives the endpoint identity; the stated sublinear condition removes the endpoint term only in the infinite-time limit. Equivalently, for the scalar inertia used in the pairwise moment-of-inertia identity, and . Specifying this factor of one half avoids confusion with another common inertia convention.
In On a Mechanical Theorem applicable to Heat by R. Clausius (1870, pp. 123-124), the author defines stationary motion through bounded positions and velocities, includes planetary orbits and elastic vibrations, and names the average negative half of the force-position sum the “virial”. That historical convention differs from the auxiliary defined above. His proof on pp. 126-127 keeps an endpoint term, then explains why it vanishes over a complete period or becomes small in a long bounded irregular motion. The same paper separates internal and external forces and includes uniform boundary pressure on pp. 125-126: confinement was already part of the formulation, rather than a reason to omit external stresses.[ref]