Solving the Electrostatic Conundrum: Brute Force vs Symmetry

In summary, two valid methods of solving a physics problem, using "brute force" and symmetry, give different answers due to a typo in the initial thread. After some work, the correct answer is obtained using the "brute force" method, which leads to the same result as the "elegant" method. However, the incorrect answer obtained using the "brute force" method is also a valid solution, leading to the conundrum of how two different methods can result in different answers for the same problem. The error is eventually discovered and corrected, showing the importance of a fresh perspective in problem-solving.
  • #1
Christopher314
6
0
Electrostatic conundrum: How "brute force" and symmetry arg. give different answers!

Hello everyone, this is my first post -- and an interesting one (or so I think).
**Note to Mods: this is NOT me asking for a solution to a HW type problem -- I know and have the solution already -- rather, this is an investigation on how two valid methods to answering a physics problem can have two complete different answers.**

Background: I do private tutoring, and a college student client of mine wanted help on this problem. I looked up the problem in my own copy of Griffiths and solved it and got the right answer. The thing is: I couldn't find anything wrong with how she did the problem. The problem is from Griffiths E&M book, page 106 problem 2.41: "Find E at a height z above the center of a square sheet (side a) carrying a uniform surface charge s. Answer: (s/2*e0)[(4/Pi)Arctangent[Sqrt[1+(a^2/(2z^2))]]]."

Here's the methods:
"Elegant": We can use a previous result of the field due to a finite line of constant line charge, except, now, we give it a constant surface charge s and an infinitesimal thickness. The point is to construct the square from thin square "frames." To do this we divide the square into four equal regions along the diagonals using the functions y = x and y = -x. So we have, essentially, line charges of varying lengths. And we use that by definition a square has all sides that are equal, so that if we vary x by dx, we inadvertently vary y by dy, i.e. since x = y, then dx = dy. Integrate and voila. This was my way and led to the correct answer.

**Edit: Using my client's notes here's her way exactly**
"Brute Force": My client, on the other hand, decided to go the "brute force" way and use the integral equation for the field. Since our field point is at z in the z-direction, r = (0, 0, z). On the x-y plane, any element of area dA is located at r' = (x, y, 0). So our |R| = |r - r'| = Sqrt[x^2 + y^2 + z^2]. Our element of area is dA = dxdy, a tiny square. By symmetry, the field points in the z-direction, so R = z cos Theta, where cos Theta = |r|/|R|. So then E = (zs/4 Pi e0)*Double Integral[dxdy/(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)^(3/2), where the limits of integration are -a/2<x<+a/2, and -a/2<y<+a/2 since we're integrating over a rectangle. This looks fine, right? Well if you compute this using Mathematica (or integral tables) you get a TOTALLY different answer!

The Plot Thickens: What's MORE interesting is that if, instead of integrating over the whole square and you just consider the contribution from 1/4 of the square cut along the diagonals (as in my derivation), where the limits of integration change to -a/2<x<+a/2, -x<y<+x and you multiply back in the factor of 4, then you DO get the correct answer.

The conundrum is: How can the solution change simply by changing the manner in which the surface integral is being calculated? Since this is a finite region, both integrals should be equal...but aren't.

Let's see what the forum's thoughts are. And if you'd like to compute the integrals yourself but don't have Mathematica, use this free Mathematica tool: http://integrals.wolfram.com/index.jsp"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In the client's method, you seem to be solving for the potential, rather than the field. Does that settle the problem?
 
  • #3
Oh man! I just called her on the phone and we laughed for about TWO minutes. I don't know how I didn't notice it! This has actually racked my brain -- I thought I was integrating wrong and even got out my old vector calculus book from the garage.
Sometimes you need a new pair of eyes to see the GLARING error.

Thanks a lot, Euclid.

**Edit** Wrong! This was a typo on my part in the initial thread. The conundrum lives!
 
Last edited:
  • #4
with a little bit of work, you can get Griffith's answer
doing it the hard way.

starting from where you left it you have.
[tex]
E_z = \frac{\sigma z}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{-a/2}^{a/2}
\int_{-a/2}^{a/2} ( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 )^{-3/2} dx \; dy [/tex]

which we can rewrite as
[tex] \frac{\sigma}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{-a/2}^{a/2} \int_{-a/2}^{a/2}
( (x/z)^2 + (y/z)^2 + 1)^{-3/2} \frac{dx}{z} \frac{dy}{z} [/tex]

Letting u = x/z, v =y/z, and p = a/(2z) gives
[tex] \frac{\sigma}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{-p}^p \int_{-p}^p
(u^2 + v^2 + 1)^{-3/2} du dv [/tex]

Integrating this with respect to u gives
[tex] \frac{\sigma}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{-p}^p
\frac{2p}{(v^2 + 1) \sqrt{p^2 + v^2 + 1}} dv[/tex]

Then Integrating with respect to v gives
[tex] \frac{\sigma}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}
4 \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{1+2p^2}} \right) [/tex]

Now there is a little bit of trig required to get this
in the form that Griffiths answer is.

I need these results
1. arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = Pi/2.
2. arctan(-x) = -arctan(x)
3. 2*arctan(a) = arctan(2a/(1-a^2))

The first two are pretty trivial. An easy
proof is subtract the left from the right,
differentiate wrt x. This gives 0 in both
cases. thus lhs = rhs + c. use x=1 to
fix the constant.

The third follows since
tan(a+b) =( tan(a) + tan(b) )/(1- tan(a)tan(b))
so, a + b = arctan( (tan(a) + tan(b)) / (1- tan(a)tan(b)) ).
If we Let a = arctan(u) and b = arctan(v) then we have
arctan(u) + arctan(v) = arctan( (u + v)/(1-uv) ).
Finally if u = v = a we get 3.Now we use them to rearrange the answer.
arctan(x) = arctan(-1/x) + pi/2:
[tex]
\frac{\sigma}{2 \epsilon_0} (\frac{2}{\pi} \tan^{-1}( \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{1+2p^2}} ))
= \frac{\sigma}{2 \epsilon_0}(\frac{2}{\pi} \tan^{-1}( \frac{-\sqrt{1+2p^2}}{p^2} ) - 1)
[/tex]

Then we can put
[tex] = \frac{\sigma}{2 \epsilon_0}(\frac{2}{\pi} \tan^{-1}( \frac{-2\sqrt{1+2p^2}}{2p^2 +1 - 1} ) - 1) [/tex]

which gives
[tex] = \frac{\sigma}{2 \epsilon_0}(\frac{2}{\pi} \tan^{-1}( \frac{2\sqrt{1+2p^2}}{1 - (2p^2 +1)} ) - 1) [/tex]

then by 3. this is
[tex] = \frac{\sigma}{2 \epsilon_0}(\frac{4}{\pi} \tan^{-1}( \sqrt{1+2p^2} ) - 1) [/tex]

with p = a/2/z, this is Griffith's answer
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Thanks a lot, qbert. The so-called (or badly deemed) "conundrum" is solved. It's all due to those Arctangent trig relations. I guess instead of my vector calc book, I should have dug out my high school trig book from the garage!
 

1. What is the electrostatic conundrum?

The electrostatic conundrum refers to the challenge of solving equations or problems related to electrostatics, which is the study of stationary electric charges and their interactions.

2. What is brute force and symmetry in relation to solving the electrostatic conundrum?

Brute force refers to a method of solving the electrostatic conundrum by directly calculating and manipulating the equations, often using numerical methods. Symmetry, on the other hand, is a technique that takes advantage of the geometric or mathematical properties of a system to simplify the solution process.

3. Which method is more efficient in solving the electrostatic conundrum?

The efficiency of the methods depends on the specific problem and the capabilities of the solver. In general, brute force is more time-consuming and computationally demanding, while symmetry can reduce the complexity and lead to faster solutions.

4. Are there any disadvantages to using symmetry in solving the electrostatic conundrum?

While symmetry can be a powerful tool in solving electrostatic problems, it may not always be applicable or easy to identify. In some cases, the use of symmetry can also lead to approximation or simplification of the solution, which may not be accurate enough.

5. How do scientists determine which method to use in solving the electrostatic conundrum?

The determination of which method to use depends on the specific problem, the resources available, and the desired level of accuracy. Scientists may also use a combination of both brute force and symmetry methods to achieve the most efficient and accurate solution.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
910
Replies
2
Views
287
Replies
4
Views
431
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
863
Replies
2
Views
747
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
4
Views
802
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
815
Replies
3
Views
731
Back
Top