Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm struggling with the following question:

Question 6 A planet of mass $m$ moves under the gravitational attraction of a central star of mass $M$. The equation of motion of the planet is

$$\ddot{\mathbf{r}} = -\mathcal{G}\frac{(M + m)}{r^3}\mathbf{r}$$

where $\mathbf{r}$ is the position vector of the planet with respect to the star, $r = \lvert\mathbf{r}\rvert$ is the magnitude of $\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ is the universal gravitational constant.

(a) Take the vector product of $\mathbf{r}$ with the above equation for $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}$ and use the standard result, $\dot{\mathbf{r}} = \dot{r}\hat{\mathbf{r}} + r\dot{\theta}\hat{\mathbf{\theta}}$ for motion in a polar coordinate system to show that $r^2\dot{\theta} = h$ where $h$ is a constant.

Part (a) asks to take vector product of $\mathbf{r}$ and $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}$. I don't know how to do this in polar coordinates.

share|cite|improve this question
Is it going to be something like $-G\frac{\left(M+m\right)}{r^{3}}\left(\mathbf{r}\times\mathbf{r}\right)=0$? – Luke May 17 '13 at 1:22
I'm guessing this is from an old exam and not something being administered as an exam presently? – Chris White May 17 '13 at 1:25
Not that it really matter for the way you have to calculate the vector product, but should the force be equal to: $\mathbf{F} = -\mathcal{G}\frac{M m}{r^3}\mathbf{r}$ and therefore the acceleration: $\ddot{\mathbf{r}} = -\mathcal{G}\frac{M}{r^3}\mathbf{r}$. – fibonatic May 17 '13 at 9:43
up vote 7 down vote accepted

$\hat r, \hat \theta, \hat z$ form an orthogonal, right-handed triad of basis vectors in 3d. Taking the cross-product with them is no more exotic or unusual than doing so for Cartesian basis vectors. $\hat r \times \hat \theta = \hat z$, and so on.

share|cite|improve this answer
Not just orthogonal, but orthonormal. – Chris White May 17 '13 at 15:39

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.