Suppose we have a sphere of radius r and mass m and a negatively charged test particle at dist

Justine Webster 2022-05-19 Answered
Suppose we have a sphere of radius r and mass m and a negatively charged test particle at distance d from its center, d r. If the sphere is electrically neutral, the particle will fall toward the sphere because of gravity. As we deposit electrons on the surface of the sphere, the Coulomb force will overcome gravity and the test particle will start to accelerate away. Now suppose we keep adding even more electrons to the sphere. If we have n electrons, the distribution of their pairwise distances has a mean proportional to r, and there are n ( n 1 ) / 2 such pairs, so the binding energy is about n 2 / r. If this term is included in the total mass-energy of the sphere, the gravitational force on the test particle would seem to be increasing quadratically with n, and therefore eventually overcomes the linearly-increasing Coulomb force. The particle slows down, turns around, and starts falling again. This seems absurd; what is wrong with this analysis?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (2)

frogoogg31
Answered 2022-05-20 Author has 12 answers
Suppose we have N electron in the sphere, the electrostatic energy to bring a new electron into the sphere is N e / R. If we add a new electron, only the net electrostatic potential N e / R.
the net potential on far-away electrons is
N ( e m e G ) / R
what is actually quadratic in N is the energy required to bind together N electrons in the sphere, it is actually
e / R + 2 e / R + . . . N e / R = N ( N 1 ) e / 2 R
This also contributes to gravitational weight, but there will be a maximum capacity where the electrons will escape the sphere
the capacitance of a sphere is given by 4 π ϵ R. So in this case the binding energy is bounded by the capacitance of the conductor used for your sphere
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question
Marco Villanueva
Answered 2022-05-21 Author has 6 answers
The statement that the gravitational attraction will eventually dominate the coulomb repulsion as n increases is correct. You probably think the restmass of the electrons will invoke gravitational attraction, but that part is neglible for high electrondensities on the sphere. The gravitational attraction by (the curvature of spacetime caused by) bindingenergy is far greater for high densities.
I don't know where the breakpoint is, but suppose I look way past that limit, i.e. an incredible dense sphere(or shell) of electrons. If I make it dense enough, that could very well become a black hole. Note that this would be a strange black hole, since the 'mass' of such a black hole consists almost entirely of the bindingenergy, and not the restmasses of the electrons. From this point of view it might be more easily imaginable that the gravitional attraction will dominate eventually.
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-07-15
If an object has very energetic particles in it like that of the sun then wouldn't its mass be higher hence making its gravity greater than that of the still state ones ?
asked 2022-07-14
Special relativity theory says simultaneity is relative, meaning that different observers will not agree on what happened first and what second. Does it then make sense to say that looking at distant stars, we see them how they looked "billions of years ago" and not how they look now? Does it make sense to talk about what these stars look like now? How do we define this "now" if simultaneity is relative?
asked 2022-07-21
Let's say someone who is not moving is seeing a rod which has one edge at x = 0 and the other at x = a so its length is a. An observer moving at constant speed u along the x-axis uses lorentz transformation to determine the coordinates of these two points in his frame of refrence.
x a = γ ( a u t ), x 0 = γ ( 0 u t ) so to find the length of the rod we take the difference of these two points and it gives us x a x 0 = γ a.
I know that γ > 1 so shouldn't the moving reference frame observe the rod to be bigger? Why are we talking about length contraction?
asked 2022-05-13
instead of assuming that the velocity c is a maximal velocity, proving that while assuming E = m c 2 .
asked 2022-04-07
I was studying about potential energy, and I suddenly thought that is there any relation between potential energy and frame of reference?
For example, we say for an object raised to a height h, potential energy is m g h. But this is so when we are talking about its distance from Earth. If a person is holding a suitcase then for the person shouldn't be the P.E. of suitcase be zero?
asked 2022-07-16
Let’s assume we have 2 different observers. Observer 1 sits in space and observer 2 sits in a space lab which is in a free fall state toward the Earth. We further assume that observer 2 in the space lab does not have any information regarding its surrounding.
1. Is there anyway that observer 2 can figure out whether any frame attached to the space lab can be regarded as an inertial or non-inertial frame?
2. Lets assume there is a 1kg ball inside the space lab which is also free falling together with the space lab? Observer 1 (with its true inertial frame) can measure the acceleration of the ball and deduce that 9.8Newton force is acting on the ball. On the other hand, observer 2 measures the acceleration of the ball as 0, and hence, deduces that the net force acting on the ball is 0. As the observer 2 has no way of knowing that space lab is not an inertial frame, he will not have any doubt about his force measurement. Does this mean that definition of force is dependent on the frame of reference?
asked 2022-07-20
The book said that the mass of a microscopic oscillator (what is that?) is not continuous, but discrete and the difference between states is an energy quanta:
ε = h ν = E k E i
And since m = h ν c 2 then the (relativistic) mass of the photon is
m = h ν c 2
How did they deduce that?

New questions