Prove Uniform Spherical Shell Mass Gravitational Field Intensity

  • Thread starter Thread starter vaishakh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the gravitational field intensity at the center of a cross-sectional plane of a uniform spherical shell, when cut into two pieces, is the same for both parts. Participants note that by the shell theorem, the gravitational field inside a uniform spherical shell is zero, leading to the conclusion that the gravitational vectors from the two halves must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. There is some confusion regarding whether the discussion pertains to a hollow shell or a solid sphere, as the gravitational behavior differs between the two. For a solid sphere, the gravitational field varies with distance from the center, while for a hemispherical shell, symmetry ensures the field at the center remains zero. The conversation suggests using differential elements and integration techniques to derive the gravitational field for more complex shapes.
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.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top