Gravitational potential energy and continuous matter

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the application of the gravitational potential energy formula to continuous matter, specifically a cylinder with constant linear density. The initial attempt to calculate the potential energy using infinitesimal segments leads to a divergent integral, raising concerns about the applicability of the standard formula. It is noted that real matter is not continuous, suggesting a finite sum of discrete mass points would be more accurate. A key point made is that the assumption of a negligible radius for the cylinder is flawed, as it conflicts with the differential elements used in calculations. The conversation concludes that using a differential expression, such as the one derived from Gauss's law for gravity, is more appropriate for continuous media.
burakumin
Messages
84
Reaction score
7
The gravitational potential energy of two massic points ##P_1## and ##P_2## with respective masses ##m_1## and ##m_2## is given by
$$U = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{|| P_2 - P_1 ||}$$
Now I was wondering how this formula could be applied to continuous matter. Let us imagine a very simple case where we have a segment-like body (a cylinder with negligible radius) of length ##L## and constant linear density ##\rho##. The gravitational potential energy of two infinitesimal segments centered in ##x_1## and ##x_2## (with ##0 \leq x_1 < x_2 \leq R##) would be:

$$\delta U = -G \rho^2 \frac{\textrm dx_1 \textrm dx_2}{x_2 - x_1}$$

But now if we try to add every contribution:

$$U = -G \rho^2 \int_{x_1 = 0}^{x_2} \int_{x_2=0}^L \frac{\textrm dx_1 \textrm dx_2}{x_2 - x_1}$$

this integral diverges...

Of course real matter is not really continuous so a more relevant description of reality would rather be a finite sum of many close but not superposed massic points. However it seems quite unsatisfying that the standard formula of gravitational potential energy does not work with the very common assumption of continuous matter. Am I missing something ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the problem is that you have assumed that the cylinder is of negligible radius. But then you've taken a differential element that is, in the limit, smaller than any radius. Accordingly, the cylinder radius is not negligible.
 
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top