Electrostatics: Charge distribution and Dirac's delta, lots of questions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the charge distribution for a uniformly charged disk using Dirac's delta function. The professor explains that for point charges, the distribution is represented by three delta functions, while for a charged plane and line, fewer are needed. The charge distribution for a uniformly charged disk is expressed in cylindrical coordinates with a theta function to constrain the radius. Participants express confusion about the ill-defined nature of charge distribution at specific points in space, noting that integration over an area or volume yields meaningful results. The conversation concludes with suggestions for improving the representation of charge distributions using step and boxcar functions.
fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
272
The problem was to give the charge distribution of a uniformly charged disk of radius R centered at the origin and perpendicular to the z-axis.
The professor explained us how to do so (though many parts were unclear to me and I couldn't copy everything that was on the blackboard because we were too much students and I couldn't see the bottom part of the blackboard).
For a punctual charge, the general form of the charge distribution is \rho (\vec x) = q \delta (x) \delta (y) \delta (z).
For a charged plane: \rho (\vec x) = q \delta (z) and for a charged line: \rho (x,y,z)=q \delta (x) \delta (y).

However for a finite (in extension) plane perpendicular to the z-axis, \rho (\vec x) = f(x,y)\delta (z). The professor told us that the Dirac's delta "reduces" the dimension (though I don't understand why/how. If you have any comment on his, this would be nice). That's why for a point-like charge we need 3 of these deltas, 1 for a plane and 2 for a line.
The purpose of the function f in the above example is to make the final value coincide with what it should be; that's what I understood.
Using cylindrical coordinates (\rho, z, \phi), for the uniformly charged disk of radius R we have that \rho (\vec x)=\delta (z) \theta (\rho -R) f(\rho) where \theta (\rho - R) = 1 for \rho \leq R and 0 for \rho \geq R. Thus the theta function is a constraint that delimit the disk of radius R.
Then I don't really know what the professor has done, some integration I believe and he reached a final result I couldn't copy.
In spherical coordinates (r, \theta, \phi ) and for the same problem, he reached that \rho (\vec x) =\frac{Q}{\pi R^2 r} \delta (\theta - \frac{\pi}{2}) \hat \theta (r-R) which looks different from the result he reached in cylindrical coordinates but it must be the same.
If I understand well the final result, it has no sense to ask for the charge distribution in a particular point in \mathbb{R}^3. However it makes sense to ask for the charge distribution in any surface element; though I don't know how to proceed. I think I should do an integration or so, but I'm not sure and an example would be welcome.
So the final answer to the question is a function that is ill defined because for example in the origin it is not defined nor at the boundaries although there are charges there.
And if I'm not wrong, if I do integrate the final answer over an area (or volume?!) A, then I should get \sigma _0 A ? Namely the amount of charges enclosed into this small area? Is this right?
Why is the function "ill defined" as I call it? Is it because we DO NOT assume charges like points but like a property of a non zero space extension?

If I have the problem "What is the charge distribution of a uniformly charged cube?", I'd rather answer \rho _0 for -a \leq x \leq a, -a \leq y \leq a, -a \leq y \leq a. 0 everywhere else.
My answer wouldn't be ill defined and I could give you the charge distribution in any particular point in space, unlike the method used in more complicated problems.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A disk is a cylinder whose height has been "flattened". So, if you can come up with the expression for a cube, then you can probably come up with the expression for a cylinder. Then, simply take the part of the expression of the cylinder that sets the height, and replace it with the delta function.
 
DaleSpam said:
A disk is a cylinder whose height has been "flattened". So, if you can come up with the expression for a cube, then you can probably come up with the expression for a cylinder. Then, simply take the part of the expression of the cylinder that sets the height, and replace it with the delta function.
Thanks for this insight.
I use cylindrical coordinates (I can't remember the variables so I take (\rho , \theta , z) ).
0\leq \rho \leq a , 0 \leq \theta \leq 2 \pi , 0\leq z \leq b for a cylinder. I replace z by \delta (z-z_0) and I get a disk perpendicular to the z-axis which crosses it at z=z_0 and with radius a.
Is this good? How would you personally write it? I feel my description of the cylinder is kind of "the ugly way".
 
Well, your description is fine, but if you want to make it prettier then you can define a couple of useful functions.

1) The unit step function:
u(x)=\int_{-\infty}^x{\delta(X)dX}

2) The boxcar function:
B_{a,b}(x)=u(x-a)-u(x-b)

Then your charge distribution becomes
\frac{Q}{A}B_{0,a}(\rho) B_{0,2\pi}(\theta)\delta(z-z_0)
 
Last edited:
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top