mersenneforum.org Gravity Force of a Spherical Shell
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2010-06-17, 11:51 #1 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 194A16 Posts Gravity Force of a Spherical Shell As we know, A) the field inside is zero B) outside it is the same as if the mass was located at the centre. The "grown-up" way of explaining this is symmetry and Gauss' Flux Theorem (easy to understand and derive without calculus). However, it is easy to see that the field inside is zero: a chord through a point P inside the sphere has the same angle of incidence at each end. Consider a narrow cone with apex P. The mass in the cone goes as distance^2 compensating for the inverse square force law. So the fields due to the masses at opposite ends of the cone cancel at P. Can B be explained as elegantly? Hint: ccorn is temporalily ineligible for this puzzle David Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2010-06-17 at 12:08
2010-06-17, 12:02   #2
xilman
Bamboozled!

"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

2×5,557 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy As we know, A) the field inside is zero
If the shell is stationary, certainly. If the shell is rotating, will there be frame dragging within it?

This is a genuine question on my part. I don't (yet) know the answer.

Paul

2010-06-17, 13:39   #3
xilman
Bamboozled!

"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

2·5,557 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman If the shell is stationary, certainly. If the shell is rotating, will there be frame dragging within it? This is a genuine question on my part. I don't (yet) know the answer. Paul
Actually, is the field inside a stationary shell zero in the case of GR with a non-zero cosmological constant?

I argue that it is not. The CC manifests itself as a discrepancy from a strict inverse square law, something which the classical proofs require.

Paul

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2010-06-18 at 08:00 Reason: Added "non-zero"

2010-06-17, 20:17   #4
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2×3×13×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy Hint: ccorn is temporalily ineligible for this puzzle David
As is xilman

2010-06-18, 02:03   #5

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

11110000011002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy B) outside it is the same as if the mass was located at the centre. < snip > Can B be explained as elegantly? Hint: ccorn is temporalily ineligible for this puzzle
If I were to answer, it'd be classically (non-relativistically), after looking up Isaac Newton's proof. While reading Principia I admired how he used geometry to prove so many things I'd not previously thought could be connected.

So I won't answer (though realizing I've just given others a hint).

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2010-06-18 at 02:07

2010-06-18, 03:41   #6
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2×3×13×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cheesehead If I were to answer, it'd be classically (non-relativistically), after looking up Isaac Newton's proof. While reading Principia I admired how he used geometry to prove so many things I'd not previously thought could be connected. So I won't answer (though realizing I've just given others a hint).
I know Newton did it, but how precisely?

2010-06-18, 04:50   #7

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

769210 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy I know Newton did it, but how precisely?
It's in here somewhere:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich

2010-06-18, 05:20   #8
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2·3·13·83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cheesehead It's in here somewhere: http://www.archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich
THX

Of course Newton is famous for gravity, calculus and was presumably
intimately familiar with Greek geometry.

The problem is a good exercize in integration: take your pick
how you set the problem up. Surface area between planes h apart
= 2 pi R h is tempting. Or rings at angle theta from either the centre
or the point outside where you are calculating the field.

I am after something neater!

David

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2010-06-18 at 05:24

2010-06-23, 16:43   #9
ccorn

Apr 2010

151 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy The problem is a good exercize in integration: take your pick how you set the problem up. Surface area between planes h apart = 2 pi R h is tempting. Or rings at angle theta from either the centre or the point outside where you are calculating the field. I am after something neater!
Solution there (Post 22). If you can simplify it further, please do so.

2010-06-24, 16:49   #10
sichase

Dec 2008
Sunny Northern California

3×19 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy I know Newton did it, but how precisely?
Extremely precisely. But not entirely rigorously according to modern standards. Newton had already invented the integral calculus at the time he published the Principia, but would not publish it for some time yet. So he was forced, in order to be understood, to couch his arguments in long-winded geometric reasoning which makes his proofs difficult reading for anyone but experts. (Check it out... it's actually really interesting, but dense, reading.) And I'm sure it wouldn't stand up to modern scrutiny as rigorous mathematics.

2010-06-24, 21:23   #11
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2×3×13×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ccorn Solution there (Post 22). If you can simplify it further, please do so.
Well, this solution is essentially geometric, simple and
not altogether unrigorous, and is IMO elegance itself.

I meant "Can you tell me precisely how Newton did it?"

David

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post wombatman Software 10 2018-04-09 02:10 kruoli Software 4 2017-11-17 18:14 starrynte PrimeNet 4 2008-10-11 23:04 tinhnho Programming 2 2005-09-21 20:20 Xyzzy Linux 5 2004-01-26 10:31

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:19.

Mon Jan 17 06:19:31 UTC 2022 up 178 days, 48 mins, 0 users, load averages: 0.98, 0.95, 0.89