I Average electrostatic field over a spherical volume

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the average electrostatic field over a spherical volume of radius R, equating it to the field at the position of a point charge with a uniform charge density of negative q. Concerns are raised about the validity of this average, particularly at the point where the electric field becomes infinite, suggesting the need for a Dirac delta function to accurately represent the field at that infinitesimal volume. The dialogue questions how to reconcile the average field being the same in both cases despite the singularity at the point charge. Additionally, there is skepticism about whether the divergence of the electric field at the origin indicates a limitation of classical theory and how to address this in calculations. The conclusion emphasizes that the average field may be meaningless for uniform charge distributions, as the vector nature of the field results in cancellation.
Ahmed1029
Messages
109
Reaction score
40
IMG_٢٠٢٢٠٥١٥_١٤٠٦١٦.jpg

this formula in the picture is the average electrostatic field over a spherical volume of radius R. It is the same expression of the electrostatic field, at the (position) of the point charge, of a volume of charge of uniform density whole entire charge is equal to (negative)q.

My question is : since the expression blows up at the position of the point charge in both cases, we know that this integrand isn't the whole story and there is an expression involving the dirac delta function for the infinitesimal volume at the position of the point charge in both cases. How do we conclude then that the average field is the same in both cases? sure they are the same away from the (position) of the point charge, but what guarantees that in an infinitesimal volume where the electric field blows up in both cases they are going to be the same? Maybe the expression involving the delta function is different in either case!

Also I'm curious to know if the electric field blowing up at the origin is just a shortcoming of the classical theory. If so, how do I deal with it in my calculations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ahmed1029 said:
It is the same expression of the electrostatic field, at the (position) of the point charge, of a volume of charge of uniform density whole entire charge is equal to (negative)q.
This is impossible to parse. What is your charge distribution and what are you trying to compute?
 
This average is meaningless. For uniform charge distribution it is zero anyway. The field is a vector and for any given elementary volume there is another one with the vector in the opposite direction.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Back
Top