Reshma
Aug3-05, 10:52 AM
This is referring to problem 2.25 in Griffiths. Find the potential at a distance 'z' above the midpoint between two equal charges, q, a distance 'd' apart. Compute the electric field in each case.
In the first part the charges are equal. The electric potential is:
V = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{2q}{{\sqrt{z^2 + (d^2/4)}}}
In this case, electric field given by \vec E = -\nabla V is:
\vec E = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{2qz}{[{z^2 + (d^2/4)}]^{(3/2)}}} \hat z
Matches with the result known in problem 2.2(a).
In the 2nd case we consider oppositely charges +q & -q. In this case the electric potential V = 0 which naively(:wink:) suggests \vec E = -\nabla V = 0 which is in contradiction to a previous known result in problem 2.2(b) which suggests:
\vec E = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{qd}{[{z^2 + (d^2/4)}]^{(3/2)}} \hat z
How is this discrepancy accounted for?
In the first part the charges are equal. The electric potential is:
V = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{2q}{{\sqrt{z^2 + (d^2/4)}}}
In this case, electric field given by \vec E = -\nabla V is:
\vec E = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{2qz}{[{z^2 + (d^2/4)}]^{(3/2)}}} \hat z
Matches with the result known in problem 2.2(a).
In the 2nd case we consider oppositely charges +q & -q. In this case the electric potential V = 0 which naively(:wink:) suggests \vec E = -\nabla V = 0 which is in contradiction to a previous known result in problem 2.2(b) which suggests:
\vec E = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{qd}{[{z^2 + (d^2/4)}]^{(3/2)}} \hat z
How is this discrepancy accounted for?