Newton's Shell theorem- Gravity inside spherical shell

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Newton's Shell Theorem, which states that a point mass outside a uniform spherical shell experiences gravitational force as if the shell's mass is concentrated at its center, while a point mass inside the shell experiences zero gravitational force. The original poster seeks to convey to students that Newton developed calculus to prove these concepts, emphasizing the historical significance of this achievement. They express curiosity about the time Newton spent on these proofs compared to the overall invention of calculus. The conversation highlights the complexity of gravitational theories and the foundational role of calculus in understanding them. The historical context of Newton's work and its implications for modern physics is also a key point of interest.
Ahsan Khan
Messages
270
Reaction score
5
Hello all,

Guys in my textbook they state that on a point mass at point outside spherical shell of uniform density, the gravitational force is just as if the entire mass of the shell is concentrated at the Centre of shell.

The text also states, the force of attraction due to a hollow spherical shell of uniform density on a point mass situated inside it, is zero.

The text also tries to make us believe it by saying some qualitative arguments and end its message by saying, this works out be as stated.

I searched the Internet get some proofs. And I also come across what is called as shell theorem. The shell theorem as given by Newton seems to be the real thing. In shell theorem Newton actually proof what the text claims.

I am here not to know the maths of shell theorem nor for the easiest version of shell theorem or anything that contains the proof of book's claim. What I want, is to know, would I be correct, if I tell those of my students who know calculus but yet are not very comfortable with a bit harder calculus and who questioned me how can I state this things(appearing too simple) to tell them without proof; the below statement-

"Dear students your are asking me why I state it without proof but let me tell you one of the reasons why Sir Issac Newton invented Calculus is to prove this very thing and it took him 20 years. "

Thanks a bunch.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The calculation is a two dimensional integration. Once calculus was invented, the theorem wasn't that hard.
 
mathman said:
The calculation is a two dimensional integration. Once calculus was invented, the theorem wasn't that hard.

Thanks mathsman, I actually want to know in historical the historical context that how big this was a deal for Newton to prove the two statements in my first post as taken from the textbook.

I am not after how easy or difficult the prove NOW! I want to know if this is ONE OF THE THINGS that has something to do with the intention of Claculas by Newton.

I heard from my favorite Walter lewin that it took Newton 20 years to prove this(what the book claims).

Regards
 
I am not a historian, so I don't know the details of the history of Newton's work. Just on the basis of the difficulties involved, I suspect inventing calculus took a lot more time than proving this theorem. He also needed to have the basic law of gravity. F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}.
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K