Can someone verify a computational result for me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cowmoo32
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computational
AI Thread Summary
In a computational physics class, two students are comparing results from different code implementations for calculating the electrostatic potential of a finite charged wire segment, yielding vastly different values. One student calculates a potential of approximately 0.0995, while the other gets 10,596, indicating a significant discrepancy. The charge density along the wire is defined as λ=λ0cos(πx/2L), and there is a discussion about the antisymmetry of the charge distribution affecting the potential. The students have not yet covered this topic in their introductory E&M class, making it difficult to verify their results analytically. The conversation highlights the challenges in computational physics when discrepancies arise in expected outcomes.
cowmoo32
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
This is for a computational physics class, but isn't a homework question, per se. My friend and I have two different sets of code trying to achieve the same thing and we're getting vastly different answers, orders of magnitude apart. We haven't covered this sort of problem in our intro E&M class yet so we aren't able to confirm a result by hand.

Using a λ0 value of 1e-6 and L = 0.5m I'm getting V = ~0.0995 and he's getting 10,596.

Write a Python code that computes the electrostatic potential of a finite segment of charged wire of length 2L, at a height H=L above the center of the wire. The charge density along the wire varies as λ=λ0cos\frac{Pi*x}{2L}
http://moodle.wolfware.ncsu.edu/file.php/33699/Lesson12/wire.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't that charge distribution antisymmetric, so the charge density at the point L-x along the wire is the negative of the charge density at the point L+x? Since the distance of these points to the point at a distance L in the middle of the wire is the same, the the contributions to the potential of these points cancels.
 
-delete- I did it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top