Why does gravitational Laplace's equation equal zero?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Laplace's equation in the context of gravitational fields, specifically addressing why it equals zero in empty space. Participants explore the mathematical representation of gravitational potential and the implications of applying Laplace's equation and Poisson's equation in different coordinate systems.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how to express the gravitational potential \(\phi = \frac{-Gm}{r}\) in Cartesian coordinates and how to derive Laplace's equation from it.
  • Another participant acknowledges a mistake in their calculations regarding the Laplacian of \(\phi\) and provides a result from a computational tool, suggesting that it equals zero under certain conditions.
  • A third participant suggests that using spherical polar coordinates simplifies demonstrating why Laplace's equation equals zero in this context.
  • A subsequent participant seeks clarification on the method proposed for using spherical coordinates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the best approach to demonstrate that Laplace's equation equals zero in empty space, as participants explore different methods and express varying levels of understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the mathematical steps involved in transitioning from Cartesian to spherical coordinates, nor have they clarified the assumptions made in their calculations.

peter46464
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I'm struggling here so please excuse if I'm writing nonsense. I'm trying to understand how, for a gravitational field, Laplace's equation (I think that's the right name) equals zero in empty space.

I understand that the gravitational potential field, a scalar field, is given by [tex]\phi=\frac{-Gm}{r}[/tex] where [itex]\phi[/itex] is the gravitational potential energy of a unit mass in a gravitational field [itex]g[/itex]. The gradient of this is (a vector field) [tex]g=-\nabla\phi=-\left(\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x},\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial y},\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial z}\right)[/tex] And the divergence of this vector field is [tex]\nabla\cdot\nabla\phi=\nabla^{2}\phi=4\pi G\rho[/tex] and is called Poisson's equation. If the point is outside of the mass, then [itex]\rho=0[/itex] and Poisson's equation becomes[tex]\nabla\cdot\nabla\phi=0[/tex] (Laplace's equation). My question is, how do I express [itex]\phi=\frac{-Gm}{r}[/itex] as a function of [itex]x,y,z[/itex] so I can then end up with [itex]\nabla\cdot\nabla\phi=0[/itex] in empty space? I would have thought that I could write [tex]\phi=\frac{-Gm}{r}=\frac{-Gm}{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}}}[/tex] but when I try to calculate [tex]\nabla\cdot\nabla\phi[/tex] from this, I don't get zero. I do this by assuming (in the simplest case) that both [itex]y[/itex] and [itex]z[/itex] are zero and then taking second derivative of [tex]\phi=\frac{-Gm}{r}[/tex]which should be zero (shouldn't it?) but isn't zero. What am I doing wrong? As simple as possible please.
Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My mistake. Not sure why but I can't simplify like that. The Laplacian of [tex]\phi=\frac{-Gm}{r}=\frac{-Gm}{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}}}[/tex]is (I used the WolframAlpha calculator, which I've only recently discovered - it's very good!)[tex]\nabla\cdot\nabla\phi=Gm\left(\frac{2x^{2}-y^{2}-z^{2}+2y^{2}-x^{2}-z^{2}+2z^{2}-x^{2}-y^{2}}{\left(x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}\right)^{5/2}}\right)=0[/tex]
 
It is much easier to demonstrate this using the representation of the Laplace operator in spherical polar coordinate:
[tex]\Delta = \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} r^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial r}[/tex]
 
How does that work?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
987
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K