Prove Uniform Spherical Shell Mass Gravitational Field Intensity

  • Thread starter Thread starter vaishakh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the gravitational field intensity at the center of the cross-sectional plane of a uniform spherical shell mass, when cut into two pieces parallel to one of its symmetry axes, is the same for both parts. The subject area is gravitational fields and the properties of spherical shells in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the gravitational field being zero internally at the center of the spherical shell and consider the implications of symmetry. There are attempts to use integration to prove the equality of gravitational field vectors from the two parts, though some express difficulty with this approach. Questions arise regarding the definitions of uniform spherical shells versus solid spheres and the resulting gravitational effects.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the problem. Some guidance is offered regarding the symmetry of the gravitational field and the use of differential elements for calculation, but there is no explicit consensus on the approach to take.

Contextual Notes

There are assumptions being questioned, particularly regarding the nature of the mass distribution (uniform spherical shell versus solid sphere) and the implications for gravitational field calculations. The complexity of integrating over the mass distribution is noted as a potential barrier to reaching a solution.

vaishakh
Messages
334
Reaction score
0
Please help me prove - A uniform spherical shell mass is cut into two pieces parallel to one of Symmetry axis. Prove that the gravitational field intensity due to the mass at the centre of the cross sectional plane parrallel to the symmetry axis is same for both the parts.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thats fairly simple. What have you done?
 
My idea is from the fact that field is 0 internally at that point. So there must be two opposite vectors due to these two parts which must be equal in magnitude. But proving them separately using integration is becoming a bit difficult.
 
vaishakh said:
My idea is from the fact that field is 0 internally at that point. So there must be two opposite vectors due to these two parts which must be equal in magnitude. But proving them separately using integration is becoming a bit difficult.

Well I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. You said uniform spherical shell so that means a sphere with zero mass inside it. By symmetry and the shell theorem, the field at any point inside is zero. :smile: If you cut it along a diametrical plane, then the fields due to the two hemispherical shells thus formed must be zero at their (former) common center (by symmetry they must be along the axis passing through the center and perpendicular to the plane face).

If you are talking of a solid sphere with uniform mass distribution (or even a mass distribution that is radially symmetrical--mass function of radius only and not any angular coordinate) then the field is zero only at its center. At points in the interior it varies directly with radial distance and outside it falls off as inverse square of radial distance. Now, if you cut a sphere along a diametrical plane then again by symmetry of mass distribution the field due to BOTH is zero at their common center. Is this what you're saying?

For a hemisphere, the easiest way is to consider it to be made up of differential discs of varying radius and distance from the center located at the plane face of the hemisphere. (And for a hemispherical ring its even easier with the differential mass element being a ring). You need to know the gravitational field of a disc (or ring) though. If you know spherical coordinates, then this is easier: you just write the field due to some dm=\rho dV where dV = r^{2}\sin\theta dr d\theta d\phi (for more info google it up). Of course that brings in a lot of accounting to start with (3 integrals) but its neat and you're less likely to make mistakes with boundary terms.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K