Solving Laplace's Eqn: Setting Zero of Potential

  • Thread starter Thread starter bcjochim07
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potential Zero
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving Laplace's equation for two scenarios involving electric fields and potentials. In the first problem, an uncharged metal sphere in a uniform electric field leads to the potential being expressed as V = -E0z + C, with the constant C set to zero by symmetry on the xy-plane. The second problem involves an infinitely long metal pipe, where a similar approach is taken to determine the potential. The key concept discussed is the freedom to set the potential to zero at a convenient location, such as the xy-plane, without affecting the electric field. This understanding is crucial for solving electrostatic problems effectively.
bcjochim07
Messages
366
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have two quick related questions that I think will help clear something up for me.

(1) An uncharged metal sphere of radius R is placed in an otherwise uniform
electric field E = E0 zhat. The field induces charge. Find the potential in the region outside the sphere.

(2) Find the potential outside an infitely long metal pipe of radius R placed at right angle to an otherwise uniform electric field E0.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Okay, so I am mostly comfortable with the solutions to these problems, with the exception of one key concept.

Problem 1: If E=E0 zhat (for r>>R, then V for r>>R is -E0z + C)
The one hang-up I have is that for problem (1), you set V=0 on the xy-plane "by symmetry." Thus we can say C=0. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind setting V=0 for all z=0.


Similarly, from problem (2), if we suppose that the electric field is pointing along z direction, so again, the form of the potential is -E0z + C. Again, one should set V=0 on the xy-plane, so C=0. I don't have a clear picture in my head of why you set V=0 on the xy-plane.


Any explanations of this concept would be greatly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since the electric field is the gradient of the potential, \vec{E} = - \nabla V (for electrostatics), a constant shift in the potential V' = V + c doesn't change the electric field. Therefore we are usually free to define the location of V=0 by adding a constant term to the potential. In your examples, choosing V(z=0) = 0 is just the most convenient choice, but it was not the only one.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top