What is wrong with my derivation for the moment of inertia of a sphere?

AI Thread Summary
The derivation for the moment of inertia of a sphere presented results in (3/5)MR^2, which is incorrect. The error arises from using the moment of inertia formula for a spherical shell instead of the correct formula for a solid sphere. The moment of inertia for a thin spherical shell is (2/3)MR^2, which should be incorporated into the derivation. The correct moment of inertia for a solid sphere is (2/5)MR^2. The discussion highlights the importance of using the appropriate formulas for different geometrical shapes in physics calculations.
eg2333
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I thought about a derivation for the moment of inertia, but my answer comes out to (3/5)MR^2

Basically, what I did was I considered the sphere as a sum of infinitesimally thin spherical shells.

The moment of inertia for one shell is dI=(r^2)*dm

where dm=(M/V)*4*pi*r^2*dr

where V=(4/3)*pi*R^3

so the equation dI=3*pi*M*r^4*dr when simplified.

Integrating this from 0 to R (Summing up the spherical shells from the center to the edge of the big sphere) gives me (3/5)*M*R^2. What is wrong with this derivation? :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
According to wikipedia, moment of inertia for a spherical shell is 2/3 M R^2 , not what you use.
 
It is actually (2/5)*MR^2 for a sphere. The method I used clearly gives the incorrect answer, which is why I'm asking to see if anyone can tell me where the fault is.
 
Nabeshin isn't talking about the sphere, but a spherical shell. As I just said in your identical thread,

"The moment of inertia of a thin shell is (2/3)MR^2, not MR^2, so your original dI should be (2/3)r^2 dm - there's your missing factor of 2/3. "
 
Mute said:
Nabeshin isn't talking about the sphere, but a spherical shell. As I just said in your identical thread,

"The moment of inertia of a thin shell is (2/3)MR^2, not MR^2, so your original dI should be (2/3)r^2 dm - there's your missing factor of 2/3. "

Thanks for spelling that out, apparently I wasn't clear enough.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top