How Does the Force Between Two Spheres Relate to Their Potential Energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the gravitational and electrostatic forces between two spheres, highlighting that the force exerted by one sphere on another can be treated as if the mass were concentrated at the center of each sphere. This principle aligns with Newton's third law, where the force on a sphere from another sphere is equal to the force it exerts back. The potential energy between the two spheres is also discussed, noting that it is equivalent regardless of which sphere's perspective is considered. The conversation acknowledges the elegance of this discovery, linking it to Newton's foundational work in gravitation and referencing Gauss's law for a clearer understanding. Overall, the relationship between force and potential energy in this context is a significant aspect of classical physics.
lark
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Something I realized the other day - trying to figure out what the gravitational (or electrostatic) force would be between two spheres -
the force ON a sphere from another sphere, is the same as if the other sphere's mass were concentrated at its center.

So what is this force? It turns out that the force on a sphere FROM a point mass is the same as the force a sphere exerts ON a point mass - that is, the sphere is attracted to another point as if the sphere were a point itself! (from Newton's third law or whatever - action = reaction)

So the force between two spheres is the same as if the mass in the two spheres were concentrated at their centers.

In general if potential energy is 0 at infinity, the potential energy of object 1 from the gravitational field of object 2 is the same as the potential energy of object 2 in the grav. field of object 1 ...

laura
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lark said:
Something I realized the other day - trying to figure out what the gravitational (or electrostatic) force would be between two spheres -
the force ON a sphere from another sphere, is the same as if the other sphere's mass were concentrated at its center.

So what is this force? It turns out that the force on a sphere FROM a point mass is the same as the force a sphere exerts ON a point mass - that is, the sphere is attracted to another point as if the sphere were a point itself! (from Newton's third law or whatever - action = reaction)

So the force between two spheres is the same as if the mass in the two spheres were concentrated at their centers.


laura
Congratulations!
You have just shown one of the most important discoveries Sir Isaac Newton made with his theory of gravitation.
this was not meant ironic, it is indeed a pleasing and elegant result.:smile:
 
Poor Newton didn't know Gauss's law (He didn't even know Gauss), so he had to work that out in a very complicated derivation.
 
arildno said:
You have just shown one of the most important discoveries Sir Isaac Newton made with his theory of gravitation.

just want to reiterate to the OP what Meir said, that this can be shown pretty clearly using spherical symmetry and Gauss's Law.
 
Is it Newton's fault he didn't know Gauss, and essentially proved this, if I recall correctly, within the context of Euclidean geometry?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top