Derivation of the potential of a sphere

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the gravitational potential for a sphere using the virial theorem, specifically the expression 3/5 GM/r for a constant density sphere. The potential energy is calculated through the integration of gravitational forces from infinitesimally thin shells added from infinity. The energy expression is confirmed as E = -3/5 GM²/R, with detailed calculations provided for mass and energy. Participants clarify the derivation steps and correct minor errors in the initial formulation. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the integration process for gravitational potentials in spherical coordinates.
Jayse_83
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've been told in a lecture course that the potential used in the virial theorem (for our application) is 3/5 GM/r. This describes the potential for a sphere of radius r, mass M created by bringing infinitly thin shells from infinity to form the next 'layer' of the sphere. I am having difficulty deriving this for myself, anybody wana give it a try ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For a constant density sphere, that's:

E=-\frac{3}{5}\frac{GM^2}{R}

E=-\int_0^R \frac{GM_r}{r}dm

M_r=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3\rho

dm=4\pi r^2\rho dr

E=-\frac{16\pi^2G\rho^2}{3}\int_0^R r^4dr=-\frac{16\pi^2G\rho^2}{15}R^5

M=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3\rho

E=-\frac{3}{5}\frac{GM^2}{R}
 
Last edited:
Spacetiger: Where do the first two lines follow from?
 
whozum said:
Spacetiger: Where do the first two lines follow from?

The first one is just correcting the result. I'm pretty sure he had mis-typed it. The second is summing over the potentials of spherical shells at a radius r and with a width of dr (brought in from infinity and assuming the potential is zero at infinity).
 
Last edited:
yep i missed the squared out ... thanks for your help :)
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top