Proof like Shell theorem for non-spherical objects?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zula110100100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Shell Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the limitations of applying Newton's shell theorem and gravitational acceleration formulas to non-spherical objects. It establishes that while the inverse-square law (GM/r²) holds for point masses and spherical distributions, it fails for non-spherical configurations due to higher-order terms like 1/r⁴. The conversation highlights practical implications, such as how the Earth's non-spherical shape affects satellite orbits, particularly in achieving sun-synchronous orbits and maintaining geostationary positions. The conclusion asserts that no proof exists for the application of these laws to non-spherical objects, as they deviate from the established gravitational principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's shell theorem
  • Familiarity with gravitational acceleration formulas (GM/r²)
  • Knowledge of spherical harmonics in physics
  • Basic principles of satellite dynamics and orbits
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of non-spherical gravitational fields on satellite trajectories
  • Study the mathematical derivation of gravitational forces for non-spherical objects
  • Explore the applications of spherical harmonics in gravitational modeling
  • Investigate the effects of Earth's equatorial bulge on satellite orbit adjustments
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, aerospace engineers, and students studying gravitational physics or satellite dynamics will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the complexities of gravitational interactions with non-spherical bodies.

Zula110100100
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Is there one out there? Do we have any reason to believe we can treat other objects like point masses as well?

I ask because if you consider line-world, and there was a 4m segment with uniform density 3kg/m located with it's left end at (3), the center of mass would be at (5), and I am located at (0), the acceleration from gravity is:

[tex]A_{g} = \frac{Gm}{r^2{}}[/tex]
[tex]A_{g} = \frac{12G}{25} = .48G[/tex]

Now I cut the object in half, so I have two 2m segments, each still a uniform 3kg/m, and it hasn't moved, but the center of mass for the nearer segment is now at (4), and the other is at (6):

[tex]A_{g} = \frac{Gm_{1}}{r_{1}^2{}} + \frac{Gm_{2}}{r_{2}^2{}}[/tex]
[tex]A_{g} = \frac{6G}{16} + \frac{6G}{36} = .375G + .167G = .542G[/tex]

So then I tried to do it with an integral(not 100% sure I am doing it right) and this is what I got

[tex]\Delta A_{g} = \frac{G\rho \Delta x}{x^{2}}[/tex]
[tex]A_{g} = G\rho \int \frac{1}{x^{2}}dx[/tex]
[tex]A_{g} = G\rho \int^{7}_{3} \frac{1}{x^{2}}dx[/tex]
[tex]A_{g} = 3G(-\frac{1}{7}+\frac{1}{3}) = 3G(-\frac{3}{21}+\frac{7}{21}) = 3G(\frac{4}{21}) = \frac{12G}{21}\equiv .571G[/tex]

That's almost a fifth more than the original estimation, so one could assume if point mass fails in 1d, it could fail in some higher dimensional configuration. Unless there is an error above, or some reason why it works in 3d and not 1d...Anyone know this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In reading that now I realize that the inverse-square law is for 3D so I imagine that makes the difference here. But the question on proofs for non-spherical objects remains
 
Proof of what? I assume you want a proof that gravitational acceleration is still given by GM/r2 for non-spherical objects.

No such proof exists, because as you have found, it is not true. A similar issue arises in static electricity. Strictly speaking, Coulomb's law is only true for point charges. Newton's shell theorem also applies to this problem, so Coulomb's law is also valid for objects with a spherical charge distribution.

Just as electricity and magnetism are better described using spherical harmonics, so is gravitation. The non-spherical nature of an object leads to 1/r4 and higher-order terms. Note: electricity has 1/r3 terms that result from imbalances of negative and positive charge. There is no such thing as negative mass, so the first non-spherical terms in the case of gravitation are 1/r4. Another thing to note: These higher-order terms tend to zero much more quickly than does the 1/r2 term. As distances grow large, objects tend to look more and more like a point mass. At very large distances, the simple form of Newton's law is approximately correct.

The various space faring nations take advantage of the non-spherical nature of Earth's gravitational field. It is very handy for an Earth-observing satellite if the subsatellite spot on the sunlit side of the satellite's orbit is always near local noon to minimize shadows (or always near twilight to maximize shadows). If the Earth was spherical, this would require constant orbit adjustments to compensate for the Earth's orbit about the Sun. This constant compensation is not needed thanks to the non-spherical nature of the Earth. The Earth's equatorial bulge causes the line of nodes of a satellite's orbit to precess. Place a satellite at the right altitude and inclination and this nodal precession will make the satellite be in sync with the Sun. This is called a sun-synchronous orbit.

The non-spherical nature of the Earth also causes satellites in geosynchronous orbits to migrate toward either 75.3°E or 104.7°W longitude. Except for geostationary satellites placed at these longitudes, a geostationary satellite needs to periodically perform stationkeeping maneuvers to keep the satellite at the desired location.

One final example: Read this article, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/06nov_loworbit/, on the fate of a couple of lunar satellites released in the Apollo days.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K