How to explain there cannot be a case where r=0 in F=G(Mm/r^2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter WaaWaa Waa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain
AI Thread Summary
In discussions about Newton's gravitational equation, it is clarified that when r=0, the concept of two separate point masses fails, as they effectively become one mass. This situation is analogous to a black hole, where mass is concentrated at a singularity. The participant acknowledges that gravity does not operate effectively at quantum scales due to the dominance of nuclear and electromagnetic forces. Misunderstandings often arise when classical physics concepts are conflated with ideas from relativity and quantum mechanics. The conversation ultimately leads to a resolution of the original question regarding gravitational force at r=0.
WaaWaa Waa
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hi. This is my first post here. In one of our science groups in Facebook, a member is asking about a case where r=0 in Newton's Equation F=G(Mm/r^2)

The best i could do was to state that there cannot be two point masses with a distance r=0 between them. He seems to accept my explanation but his intuition that it should be 'infinity' still remains. I would like to explain it better. Can you please help?

I have searched the site but could not find the answer. If there is already a thread, I would be glad if you could point me towards it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The gravitational force of attraction between two point masses, M & m2, separated by a distance 'r' is given by:

F= GMm/r2

If r=0, then you don't have two masses anymore but one mass. In which cases, gravity would vary with depth of the planet. Read more here.
 
WaaWaa Waa said:
Hi. This is my first post here. In one of our science groups in Facebook, a member is asking about a case where r=0 in Newton's Equation F=G(Mm/r^2)

The best i could do was to state that there cannot be two point masses with a distance r=0 between them. He seems to accept my explanation but his intuition that it should be 'infinity' still remains. I would like to explain it better. Can you please help?

I have searched the site but could not find the answer. If there is already a thread, I would be glad if you could point me towards it.

When r=0, you no longer have two masses, you have one. This condition actually does occur at a black hole, where all mass is (believed to be) contained in a singularity, i.e., a single point.
 
I don't think the gravity law works well on a quantum scale since the nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces become very strong at small distances.
 
Thank you guys for your insights, we managed to resolve the question.

When we are talking about classical physics, I think we sometimes tend to grab ideas from Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and get confused and this seems to be the root of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
View full post »

Thread 'Do electron density waves accompany EM waves in coaxial cables?'

Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
View full post »
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Huygens Principle - how to explain this with classical language?
Replies
2
Views
1K
B Wheres G (m1*m2)/r^2 come from?
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Atmospheric Density vs Altitude in an O'Neil Cylinder
Replies
1
Views
3K
I Principle of relativity and Galileo's group
Replies
10
Views
2K
B How's it possible to push on systems with 2 parts? (Newton's third law)
Replies
14
Views
1K
B What happen if i put r=0 into the formula F=(k)mm/r^2
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Integrating discs to find the gravitational force of a sphere
Replies
5
Views
4K
Difference between G and gravitational accleration
Replies
8
Views
3K
B Help Scaling Gravity Simulation
Replies
7
Views
2K
Divergence of r/r^3: Defining w/ Dirac Delta to Fill Gaps
Replies
13
Views
34K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top