A point mass inside a spherical shell

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the gravitational effects of a point mass inside a spherical shell. It is established that the potential energy is constant throughout the shell, leading to a zero gravitational force within it, as per Newton's Shell Theorem. However, confusion arises when the book discusses gravitational forces within any spherical mass distribution, suggesting that forces can be calculated based on mass outside a certain radius. Clarification reveals that while the force from the shell is indeed zero, the gravitational force from any mass within the radius does contribute to the overall force experienced by the point mass. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that the zero force inside a shell applies specifically to the shell itself, while other mass distributions can yield non-zero forces depending on their configuration.
amiras
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I am having some difficulties understanding something here, it seems to me that the book at some point deny itself or I clearly do not get it.

So it firstly states that:
Inside the spherical shell the potential energy does not depend on radius from the center of the shell to the point of mass m and has the same value everywhere inside the shell.

So the potential energy between the spherical shell and the point mass m is:
U = -GMm/R, where M is the mass of the shell, and m - mass of a point mass inside the shell, R is the radius of the shell. So clearly this potential energy does not depend on where it is inside the shell and is always constant.

Since the force is the negative gradient of the potential energy function, and U=const. the Force must be zero (everywhere inside the shell?)

But now the book says:
More generally, at any point in the interior of any spherical symmetric(radius R) mass distribution, at a distance r from its center, the gravitational force on a point mass m is the same as though we removed all the mass at points farther than r from the center and concentrated all the remaining mass at the center.

So now it states that the force is not zero and can be calculated. First it said that the force on m at any point inside the shell must be zero. What am I missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
amiras said:
Since the force is the negative gradient of the potential energy function, and U=const. the Force must be zero (everywhere inside the shell?)
That is correct. This was proven by Newton in his Shell Theorem.

amiras said:
But now the book says:
More generally, at any point in the interior of any spherical symmetric(radius R) mass distribution, at a distance r from its center, the gravitational force on a point mass m is the same as though we removed all the mass at points farther than r from the center and concentrated all the remaining mass at the center.
If you would read this part carefully, it is not referring to just spherical shells but any spherical mass distribution, thus there is no contradiction. In fact, this statement is a rewording of the Shell Theorem, because we can consider any spherical mass distribution to be composed out of many spherical shells. That we can "remove all the mass at points farther than r from the center" is a consequence of the earlier result that the force on the point mass due to these outer spherical shells is zero because the point mass lies within these shells!
 
amiras said:
I am having some difficulties understanding something here, it seems to me that the book at some point deny itself or I clearly do not get it.

So it firstly states that:
Inside the spherical shell the potential energy does not depend on radius from the center of the shell to the point of mass m and has the same value everywhere inside the shell.

So the potential energy between the spherical shell and the point mass m is:
U = -GMm/R, where M is the mass of the shell, and m - mass of a point mass inside the shell, R is the radius of the shell. So clearly this potential energy does not depend on where it is inside the shell and is always constant.

Since the force is the negative gradient of the potential energy function, and U=const. the Force must be zero (everywhere inside the shell?)

Yes

But now the book says:
More generally, at any point in the interior of any spherical symmetric(radius R) mass distribution, at a distance r from its center, the gravitational force on a point mass m is the same as though we removed all the mass at points farther than r from the center and concentrated all the remaining mass at the center.

So now it states that the force is not zero and can be calculated. First it said that the force on m at any point inside the shell must be zero. What am I missing here?

There's no contradiction. The second case is not just a shell: there can also be mass within the radius r. Consider a solid sphere of radius R. If we have a point mass at radius r from the centre, we can imagine the sphere divided into two parts:
1. A sphere of radius r
2. A spherical shell of inner radius r and outer radius R
The gravitational force of the sphere of radius r on the point mass is the same as if all its mass were concentrated at its centre. The gravitational force of the remaining shell on the point mass is zero.
 
amiras said:
But now the book says:
More generally, at any point in the interior of any spherical symmetric(radius R) mass distribution, at a distance r from its center, the gravitational force on a point mass m is the same as though we removed all the mass at points farther than r from the center and concentrated all the remaining mass at the center.

So now it states that the force is not zero and can be calculated.

No, this also gives zero in the case of your example with the massive shell. :-)
 
Thank you for your explanation, all this starts to make sense to me now! Thanks :)
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K