0

When computing the gravitational force from an infinite plane (or the electrical field from an infinite sheet of charge), it is standard to begin by making a symmetry argument to say that the horizontal component of the force vanishes.

However, this symmetry argument is only valid when the actual integral involved converges; otherwise, different approximations of the infinite sheet may give different answers, so there is no way to argue from symmetry that the answer ought to be zero.

Is the integral convergent? To put it another way, is "the gravitational force on a particle from an infinite plane" a well-defined concept? If not, what additional assumptions do we need to make the standard approximation valid?

Micah
  • 528
  • This was originally going to be an answer to http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/264306/ , responding in detail to @Hurkyl's comment there. But it doesn't really apply, as the OP was sufficiently careful about defining what they were looking for as to exclude the kind of pathology I'm asking about. I found the result surprising enough that it seemed worth posting anyway. – Micah Jun 24 '16 at 19:04
  • You are stating the obvious, even if you are trying to be exact about the math. In reality one should not use any "infinite anythings" in physics. They don't exist. What does exist are suitable series approximations of the fields of finite objects that are valid at certain distance scales. Instead of elaborating what does not work, you should give an answer to how to do this right. – CuriousOne Jun 24 '16 at 19:43
  • @CuriousOne: I added some details about how one might do this right. I agree that this is all in some sense obvious, but it's an obvious thing that — for this specific problem — I can't find explicitly written down anywhere on the internet, nor in my E&M textbook... – Micah Jun 24 '16 at 21:05
  • I am sure you can find the theoretical correct approach to all of this in plenty of papers and math books, it's just not being taught correctly. You are pretty close to what you need to do to get this right, anyway, but instead of taking limits to infinity and proving logarithmic divergence, take limits to zero where you evaluate the field. For a finite slab the symmetry argument holds and all you need to evaluate is the first (worst case second order) errors one gets from the finite size. – CuriousOne Jun 24 '16 at 21:29

3 Answers3

1

In fact, it is not convergent: the horizontal component of the gravitational force can depend arbitrarily on parts of the sheet which are far away, if you are sufficiently malicious in your choice of surfaces which exhaust the infinite plane.

To make this explicit, let's suppose we are suspended at the cartesian point $(0,0,D)$, and place some mass of surface density $\sigma$ on the plane $z=0$, within a distance $\rho_1$ of the origin on the half-plane $y \leq 0$, and within a distance $\rho_2$ of the origin on the half-plane $y \geq 0$. We assume that $D>0$ and $\rho_2\geq \rho_1$, and look at what happens to the horizontal component of force when $\rho_1,\rho_2 \gg D$.

The first thing to notice is that the entire disc of radius $\rho_1$ is massive. So, by symmetry, its contribution to the horizontal force vanishes. That is, we need only consider the contribution of the "half-annulus" $$ \{p: \rho_1 \leq |p| \leq \rho_2, y \geq 0\} $$ Also by symmetry, the $x$ component of force vanishes, so we only need to compute its $y$ component. We work in polar coordinates. A small patch of mass at coordinates $(r,\theta)$ with area $r \, dr \, d\theta$ is at distance $\sqrt{r^2+D^2}$ from us, and has mass $\sigma r \, dr\, d\theta$. So the overall magnitude of the gravitational force vector will be $$ |F|=\frac{G \sigma r \, dr\, d\theta}{r^2+D^2} $$ The fraction of this which is directed horizontally is $\frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2+D^2}}$; the fraction of that which is directed in the $y$ direction is $\sin \theta$. So our small patch of mass contributes $$ G \sigma \frac{r^2 \sin \theta \, dr\, d\theta}{(r^2+D^2)^{3/2}} $$ to the $y$-component of the force. The entire $y$-component of the force is then given by integrating over the half-annulus: $$ F_y=G\sigma \int_{0}^{\pi} \int_{\rho_1}^{\rho_2} \frac{r^2 \sin \theta \, dr\, d\theta}{(r^2+D^2)^{3/2}}=2G\sigma\int_{\rho_1}^{\rho_2} \frac{r^2 \, dr}{(r^2+D^2)^{3/2}} $$

If $\rho_1,\rho_2 \gg D$, then it follows that $$ F_y \approx 2G\sigma \int_{\rho_1}^{\rho_2} \frac{dr}{r} =2G\sigma \log\left(\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1}\right) $$ which could be arbitrarily large regardless of the size of $\rho_1$, unless we have some further bound on $\rho_2$.


How good a bound on $\rho_2$ do we need in order for the standard result to be a reasonable approximation? Say we want the horizontal component of force to be less than $\epsilon$ times as large as the vertical component. By the standard argument, the vertical component will be well-approximated by $2\pi G\sigma$, so we want $$ 2G\sigma \log\left(\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1}\right) < \epsilon (2\pi G\sigma) $$ from which it follows that $$ \frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1} < e^{\pi \epsilon} \tag{*} $$

For example, if we want to guarantee the horizontal component to be a full order of magnitude smaller than the vertical component, we take $\epsilon = 0.1$ and so must have $\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1} < e^{0.1\pi} \approx 1.37$.

In principle this only applies to our specific example. But in fact our example is the worst-case scenario among all mass configurations where the nearest edge of the mass is at horizontal distance $\rho_1$ from us, and the entire mass is within horizontal distance $\rho_2$ of us. (Of all such configurations, it involves the largest possible contribution in the $y$ direction without any unnecessary cancellations.) So $(*)$ can be used as a general rule of thumb in all such situations.

Micah
  • 528
  • 2
    have you never heard that $\infty-\infty=0$? ;) –  Jun 24 '16 at 20:56
  • In this construction, the $z$ component will not be $\epsilon_{0}E/2$, and the standard Gauss's law argument doesn't work, because you have net flux out of the sides of the pillbox now. This appears in the integral formulation as having a non-minimum distance from the center of mass. – Zo the Relativist Jun 24 '16 at 21:25
  • @JerrySchirmer: I agree that the $z$ component will not be exactly what you get in the infinite case, but it should be approximated by it, as the integral over the entire plane for the $z$ component actually converges. Am I missing something? – Micah Jun 24 '16 at 21:47
  • @Micah: oh, wait $E_{y} \rightarrow {\rm const}$ as the plane becomes infinite, so there is no flux contribution through the sides. You're right. – Zo the Relativist Jun 24 '16 at 22:15
1

The calculation offered by user Micah here is insightful and correct. My answer could be read as an extended comment on that.

The infinite plane result is ordinarily used in the case where we have a finite plane and want to know the field in the limit $$ \frac{z}{D} \rightarrow 0 $$ where $z$ is the distance from a sheet of mass of uniform surface density, and $D$ is some measure of the width of the sheet, such as a diameter. We ordinarily claim that the answer will not depend on the shape of the sheet as long as all its diameters are large compared to $z$. But the calculation by Micah shows that that claim is wrong if the non-symmetry of the sheet (e.g. the difference between two diameters) is itself of the order of the size of the sheet. We can get a good estimate of this as follows.

The force from matter at distance $r$ goes as $1/r^2$. The amount of matter in a ring of width $dr$ and radius $r$ is (in the planar case) $\sigma 2 \pi r dr$ so the force from that matter has a size of order $$G m \sigma dr / r $$ where I throw away the $2\pi$ because I don't want to consider a complete ring but rather some part-ring which has been cut off by the irregular shape of our sheet of matter. By integrating this you get the log functions already discussed in the answer by Micah.

A similar approach for fields inside a large homogeneous volume shows that in that case the distance parts have a large impact.

Andrew Steane
  • 58,183
0

Infinite distributions of mass can give rise to some contradictions. The classical well known example is an infinite homogeneous universe. In this case, by symmetry you would say that the the force will be zero everywhere. However, if you chose two arbitrary points in space, one as the center of coordinates and apply gauss law centered at the origin, then you conclude that the second point will only feel the force of the mass inside the surface of a sphere within the second point, and the rest of the forces outside will cancel. Thus, does the mass collapses to the origin or not? (remember that you chose the origin arbitrarily). A full account of this paradox can be found here .