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.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top