1
$\begingroup$

I have been reading Richard Feynman's lectures and came across an interesting proof regarding the Earth's gravitational force. At one point in the proof, Feynman uses the following the integral:

$\int_{R+a}^{R-a} dr$ (13.18 on http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_13.html)

In this integral, r is the distance between a point in space and the surface of the Earth, R is the distance between that point and the center of the Earth, and a is the radius of the Earth. I interpret this integral as summing up all of the dr's going around the Earth. The proof itself makes sense to me, I am just confused about the bounds of integration.

As $\int_{R+a}^{R-a} dr$, I interpret the integral as summing up the dr's starting on the right side of the Earth and going to the left side. However, in this sense, $\int_{R-a}^{R+a} dr$ should be the sum of all the dr's starting from the left side and going to the right side. Conceptually, I feel as if these should be the same, but mathematically $\int_{R+a}^{R-a} dr = -\int_{R-a}^{R+a} dr$. My question is, how did Feynman choose the ordering of his bounds of integration? It does not appear arbitrary, but I am not sure how the decision was made. Thank you!

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

0
$\begingroup$

In this integral, r is the distance between a point in space and the surface of the Earth, ...

Almost. Actually, based on the diagram in the derivation, $r$ is the distance from the point in space to the ring of mass that is part of the spherical shell. It $is$ a distance like you describe, but it is the distance to a very specific geometrical piece of mass.

I interpret this integral as summing up all of the dr's going around the Earth.

Maybe, depending on what you mean by "going around the earth." I would describe the integral as summing all the rings of mass, starting at the distance $R+a$ (on the far left end of the shell) and accumulating ring by ring all the way to $R-a$ (on the far right end of the shell). The integral around the earth which creates each ring in the shell was done implicitly and results in the $2\pi$ factor.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reading through the proof, it seems like he actually starts by working in $x$, then proves the relationship between $x$ and $r$ (which includes the negative sign): $2r~dr = -2R~dx$.

Keeping the direction of the integration the same, you can see that the natural order for $r$ is from larger ($r=R+a$) to smaller ($r=R-a$):

enter image description here

The sign change (going from x positive to r negative) is absorbed by removing the negative sign that was in front of the original expression for W.


Image source: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_13.html modified to include direction of integration

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the response! I am not sure if I am missing something, but it appears as if Feynman plugs that value into the equation for $dW$. $dW$ is originally negative but after he plugs it in, it is positive. I think he accounts for the sign, unless I am missing something. $\endgroup$
    – dts
    Commented Jun 26, 2017 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ @dts you are right - I have updated my answer to account for that. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Jun 27, 2017 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the response! I think the problem may be my calculus knowledge. To my understanding, the natural direction of integration is determined by the original equation that is in terms of $dx$. I am just confused how one would know the direction of integration if he had never seen the original equation (in terms of $dx$). The natural direction of integration in terms of $dr$ seems to be $R-a$ to $R+a$. What makes the equation with $dx$ so "special" that it determines the direction of integration? $\endgroup$
    – dts
    Commented Jun 27, 2017 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ It's not "so special". Just follows from the derivation. The original equation was derived in x - when you transform coordinates (x-->r), you transform the bounds as well. You can flip the coordinates but then you need to change the sign. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Jun 27, 2017 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ So, just in general, if a differential is being substituted with another differentisl that contains a negative sign, the bounds will be "flipped" (even if the integral sign is not written explicitly)? $\endgroup$
    – dts
    Commented Jun 27, 2017 at 13:52
0
$\begingroup$

The problem has nothing to do with change of variable. It is just about orientation, where you are choosing to put your zero potential energy. He is putting it at $r=\infty$. This is just a convention, no math. You can put the zero anywhere you like. The integral is then from $r=\infty$ to $0$. So, the integral is really $\int_{\infty}^{0}dW$. There is no mass everywhere in that interval. The mass only counts in the interval from $R+a$ to $R−a$. That is why you end up computing $\int_{R+a}^{R-a}dW$. That's all. Put your zero potential energy at $r=0$ and the order reverses. The sign of the resulting potential energy accounts for the different choice in zero level.

See Why choose a convention where gravitational energy is negative?

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.