Description
The magnitude of the orbital angular momentum vector of a planet is, where is the orbital radius of the planet (from the barycenter), is the mass of the planet, and is its orbital velocity. That of Jupiter contributes the bulk of the Solar System's angular momentum, 60.3%. Then comes Saturn at 24.5%, Neptune at 7.9%, and Uranus at 5.3%. The Sun forms a counterbalance to all of the planets, so it is near the barycenter when Jupiter is on one side and the other three jovian planets are diametrically opposite on the other side, but the Sun moves to 2.17 solar radii away from the barycenter when all jovian planets are in line on other side. The orbital angular momenta of the Sun and all non-jovian planets, moons, and small Solar System bodies, as well as the axial rotation momenta of all bodies, including the Sun, total only about 2%.
If all Solar System bodies were point masses, or were rigid bodies having spherically symmetric mass distributions, then an invariable plane defined on orbits alone would be truly invariable and would constitute an inertial frame of reference. But almost all are not, allowing the transfer of a very small amount of momenta from axial rotations to orbital revolutions due to tidal friction and to bodies being non-spherical. This causes a change in the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum, as well as a change in its direction (precession) because the rotational axes are not parallel to the orbital axes. Nevertheless, these changes are exceedingly small compared to the total angular momenta of the system (which is conserved despite these effects, ignoring the even much tinier amounts of angular momentum ejected in material and gravitational waves leaving the Solar System, and the extremely tiny torques exerted on the Solar System by other stars, etc.), and for almost all purposes the plane defined on orbits alone can be considered invariable when working in Newtonian dynamics.
Read more about this topic: Invariable Plane
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“Everything to which we concede existence is a posit from the standpoint of a description of the theory-building process, and simultaneously real from the standpoint of the theory that is being built. Nor let us look down on the standpoint of the theory as make-believe; for we can never do better than occupy the standpoint of some theory or other, the best we can muster at the time.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)
“As they are not seen on their way down the streams, it is thought by fishermen that they never return, but waste away and die, clinging to rocks and stumps of trees for an indefinite period; a tragic feature in the scenery of the river bottoms worthy to be remembered with Shakespeare’s description of the sea-floor.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)