Gauss' Law Conclusion in Gravitational Fields

AI Thread Summary
Electric and gravitational fields share similarities, with Gauss' Law applying to both. In electrostatics, a charged body with a cavity shows that no charge exists inside the conductor, while introducing a point charge in the cavity induces charge on the inner surface. In contrast, when a point mass is placed inside a spherical shell, there is no observable redistribution of mass on the shell's surface to counteract the gravitational field, as gravity does not behave like electrostatics in this regard. The electrostatic field within a conductor must be zero, a principle that does not have a direct parallel in gravitational fields. Overall, while Gauss' Law is applicable to both scenarios, the physical behaviors of electric and gravitational fields differ significantly.
modulus
Messages
127
Reaction score
3
I've been told that electric and gravitational fields have a lot in common, and both are practically analogous to each other. Also, the conclusions made through Gauss' Law apply just as well (analogously) to gravitational fields.



One of Gauss' Law's predictions is for a solid (conducting) charged body with a a cavity in it. According to it, no charge can exist inside the body...the only charge on it must exist on it's outer surface; that means no charge can exist on the inner surface. We get to that conclusion if we consider a Gaussian surface inside the body's material (not in the cavity).

But, if we introduce a point charge in the cavity, a charge develops on the inner surface, so that if we take a Gaussian surface in the body's material again (not in the cavity), there's no net electric field inside the body, and therefore, no net flux through the surface (and therefore, no net charge within the surface).


But, if we consider this for a gravitational field; we take a body with a cavity within it. For simplicity, I considered a spherical shell. I know that there's no gravitational field inside a shell. So, when I place a point mass inside the shell, why do we not observe any redistribution of the mass of the shell on the surface of the shell, so as to cancel out the gravitational field of the point mass (as we saw in the case of the point charge introduced in the cavity of the charged body). Or is there a tendency for a redistribution to take place...but it is not observable (or not possible, for that matter), because we consider the body to be rigid??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
modulus said:
One of Gauss' Law's predictions is for a solid (conducting) charged body with a a cavity in it. According to it, no charge can exist inside the body...the only charge on it must exist on it's outer surface; that means no charge can exist on the inner surface. We get to that conclusion if we consider a Gaussian surface inside the body's material (not in the cavity).
That's only true because the electrostatic field within a conductor must be zero. That goes beyond Gauss' law and has no parallel with gravity. (Gauss' law itself works just fine for both.)
 
Thread 'Is there a white hole inside every black hole?'
This is what I am thinking. How much feasible is it? There is a white hole inside every black hole The white hole spits mass/energy out continuously The mass/energy that is spit out of a white hole drops back into it eventually. This is because of extreme space time curvature around the white hole Ironically this extreme space time curvature of the space around a white hole is caused by the huge mass/energy packed in the white hole Because of continuously spitting mass/energy which keeps...
Why do two separately floating objects in a liquid "attract" each other ?? What if gravity is an emergent property like surface tension ? What if they both are essentially trying to *minimize disorder at the interfaces — where non-aligned polarized particles are forced to mix with each other* What if gravity is an emergent property that is trying to optimize the entropy emerging out of spin aligned quantum bits
Back
Top