What is the gravitational field of a flat disc?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the gravitational field of a flat disc with constant density in the z=0 plane. The original poster attempts to derive the gravitational field from the potential function and questions the presence of a force at z=0.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the integration of potential to find the gravitational field and question the implications of the results at z=0. There are inquiries about the thickness of the disc and its relevance to the calculations. Some participants suggest that the potential may not be symmetric, leading to different interpretations of the force at z=0.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored regarding the gravitational field and potential. Some participants have provided insights into the nature of the force at z=0, noting the need for separate consideration of this case.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about the assumptions made regarding the disc's thickness and the implications of the absolute value function in the context of the gravitational field calculations.

speg
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, so I'm back in school after an 8-month break, and I'm feeling a bit rusty :rolleyes:

So I've got a flat disc of radius A, with constant density p, in the z=0 plane. I want to calculate the gravitational field at any point up or down the z-axis.

I integrated the potential over the disc got the correct potential function (which is given) of :

\Phi(z)=-G\rho2\pi(\sqrt{a^2+z^2}-z)
So now I just take the negative derivative of this to get the Gravitational field, right?
G(z)=-\nabla\Phi(z)
G(z)=-G\rho2\pi(\frac{z}{\sqrt{a^2+z^2}}-1)

But this means there is a force at z=0 when I think there should not be... :confused:

How do I make a new line in Latex? \\ this doesn't seem to work? :@
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
speg said:
So I've got a flat disc of radius A, with constant density p, in the z=0 plane. I want to calculate the gravitational field at any point up or down the z-axis.

I integrated the potential over the disc got the correct potential function (which is given) of :

\Phi(z)=-G\rho2\pi(\sqrt{a^2+z^2}-z)
So now I just take the negative derivative of this to get the Gravitational field, right?
G(z)=-\nabla\Phi(z)
G(z)=-G\rho2\pi(\frac{z}{\sqrt{a^2+z^2}}-1)

But this means there is a force at z=0 when I think there should not be...
What is the thickness of the disc? Where does that appear in your calculation?

The force/unit mass at (0,0,z) from a ring element of the disc of radius r thickness h and width dr would be:

dF = Gdm/s^2 = \frac{G\rho 2\pi r hdr}{r^2 + z^2}

assuming h to be small compared to z. Integrate that from r = 0 to r = A.

AM
 
Last edited:
The potential is not correct, since it is not symmetric about the disk.
The proper potential is:
\Phi(z)=-G2\pi\rho(\sqrt{a^{2}+z^{2}}-|z|)
yielding the proper force per unit mass along the z-axis (in the positive vertical direction) :
f(z)=2\pi\rho{G}(\frac{z}{\sqrt{a^{2}+z^{2}}}-\frac{z}{|z|})
The limiting values as z goes to zero,
\lim_{z\to{0}^{+}}f(z)=-2\pi\rho{G}, \lim_{z\to{0}^{-}}f(z)=2\pi\rho{G}
are the strengths of the force just outside the disk, on either side.
There is a leap of discontinuity across the disk, where AT the origin, the force is, indeed 0.
 
Last edited:
\frac{d|z|}{dz}=\frac{z}{|z|}?
 
speg said:
\frac{d|z|}{dz}=\frac{z}{|z|}?
Quite so. :smile:
The derivative of the absolute value function is not defined at z=0.
 
And so F cannot be defined at z=0? So we take that to mean there is no force there?
 
speg said:
And so F cannot be defined at z=0? So we take that to mean there is no force there?
No, it doesn't. It just means you have to consider the z=0 case separately.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
64
Views
6K