Does the Law of Universal Gravitation Apply to Quantum Levels?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the applicability of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, specifically the formula F=GMm/r^2, to non-point masses and whether it holds true when masses overlap or are considered at quantum levels. Participants explore the implications of using this law in various contexts, including the center of mass theorem and gravitational forces within the Earth.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that Newton's formula can be applied to non-point masses by using integral calculus to account for the distribution of mass.
  • Others argue that when masses overlap, the direct application of the formula is not valid, and one must integrate over the volume of the masses involved.
  • A participant mentions that the center of mass theorem allows for treating a body as a point mass under certain conditions, but cautions that this does not apply universally to all geometries.
  • There is a discussion about the gravitational force experienced by an object inside the Earth, noting that the net force at the center is zero due to symmetry.
  • A later reply questions whether the discussed gravitational formulas apply at quantum levels, indicating a shift in the context of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of Newton's law to non-point masses and the implications of overlapping masses. There is no consensus on whether these principles can be extended to quantum levels, as this question remains open for further exploration.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the geometrical configuration of mass distributions and the unresolved nature of how classical gravitational laws relate to quantum mechanics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying gravitational theory, classical mechanics, and the intersection of classical and quantum physics.

mengshuen
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
hello all

i was wondering if we could use Newton's F=GMn/r^2 to apply it to non-point masses, and specifically, if they two masses come completely within each other, would it still hold?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mengshuen said:
i was wondering if we could use Newton's F=GMn/r^2 to apply it to non-point masses

Not directly. In general, you have to use integral calculus. Conceptually, you divide both M and m into lots of tiny pieces dM and dm, all at different locations, of course; then find the force of attraction between each combination of dM and dm (each combination has a different r); then add all those forces as vectors.

If each object's mass is distributed in a spherically-symmetric way, and they don't overlap, then you can pretend that each object is a point object located at the object's center. I've read that Newton invented integral calculus in order to prove this.

But of the objects overlap, you can't do this.
 
mengshuen said:
hello all

i was wondering if we could use Newton's F=GMn/r^2 to apply it to non-point masses

Absolutely![itex]^1[/itex] It is the Glory of what one might call the center of mass theorem. Given a body of density [itex]\rho[/itex] (or more generally even, given any system of particles whatsoever), you can calculate the "center of mass" of this body, defined by

[tex]\vec{R} = \frac{\int_{\mbox{body}}\vec{r}\rho dV}{\int_{\mbox{body}}\rho dV} = \frac{\int_{\mbox{body}}\vec{r}\rho dV}{M}[/tex]

and the equation of motion for this point is

[tex]\vec{F} = M \frac{d^2}{dt^2}\vec{R}[/tex]

where [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] is the sum of the forces acting on the body. Qualitatively, what this is saying is that for any body, its center of mass moves according to Newton's second law of motion as if it were a point-particle of mass M! [itex]^1[/itex] but not directly, as jtbell said. It can be applied, but we must pass by the concept of the center of mass.
 
i see. so, if i drop something through earth, assuming that there is a hole through the other side, the gravity is the strongest at the center of earth? since r^2 approaches 0.
 
jtbelland quasar987 answered you correctly and you misinterpreted their answers completely! If a small mass is inside the Earth then you have to use [itex]\frac{GmM}{r^2}[/itex] at each point within the earth, integrating over the volume of the earth. One thing that shows is that the mass of the Earth outside the radius of the object from the center of the Earth cancels out. Only the mass inside that radius is important and you can use [itex]\frac{GmM}{r^2}[/itex] for that. But the mass falls off as r3 so in fact the total force on an object within the Earth is proportional to r. The net force on an object at the center of the Earth is 0. That should be obvious: all the forces are outwardly directed and are symmetric.
 
Center of mass

mengshuen said:
i was wondering if we could use Newton's F=GMn/r^2 to apply it to non-point masses
quasar987 said:
Absolutely! It is the Glory of what one might call the center of mass theorem. Given a body of density [itex]\rho[/itex] (or more generally even, given any system of particles whatsoever), you can calculate the "center of mass" of this body, defined by ...
Careful! This does not mean that you can directly apply F=GMm/r^2 to calculate the gravitational attraction between two extended objects by treating them as point masses located at their center of mass. This only works for special geometries, such as spherically symmetric mass distributions (see Newton's sphere theorem). In general you must use integral calculus as jtbell explained.

It is certainly true that the net force on an extended object can be used to calculate the acceleration of the object's center of mass according to F=ma, but that is a different problem. (That is what I would call the "center of mass theorem".)
 
oh. i get it. thanks a million.

but may i ask, does those formulae apply to the quantum levels as well?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K