The central force has no transverse component. Its angular equation is thereforeThus the specific angular momentum is the constantThe radial equation isSubstitute :Consequently the radial motion for is exactly a unit-mass one-dimensional motion in the effective potentialIts conserved energy is ; the second term in the effective potential accounts for the angular kinetic energy.
For circular orbits in an exponential central potential, a constant positive radius requires , orLet . Its derivative is : it rises from zero to , then falls back to zero. HenceThe strict lower bound matters: the printed upper bound also allows , but then there is no finite-radius circular orbit. Nonzero angular momentum is an implicit hypothesis of the two-orbit claim.
At a circular orbit, use to obtainA small radial displacement satisfies . Therefore the inner circular orbit is radially stable at fixed angular momentum, while the outer orbit is unstable. The inner perturbation oscillates with squared frequency ; the outer perturbation has an exponentially growing solution. At the limiting value , the radii coalesce at and the linear restoring coefficient vanishes.
For inferring an inverse-square force from Kepler laws, first use the area swept by an infinitesimal radius sector:Kepler's second law makes the areal velocity constant, so is constant. Then , meaning that the acceleration has no transverse component. Newton's second law therefore gives a central force directed along the Sun–planet line.
For the radial dependence, set . Since ,The radial acceleration is the Binet equation expressionThe focus-based ellipse has , hence . ThusFor a planet of mass , the force is : it is attractive and obeys the inverse-square law. This deduction uses both the shape of the orbit and its constant areal velocity; the orbit shape alone would not determine its time-dependent acceleration.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.