Calculating Electrostatic Pressure from Metal Sphere

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gulsen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrostatic Pressure
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electrostatic pressure exerted by a charged metal sphere, specifically focusing on the force between the northern and southern hemispheres. Participants explore the integration limits for calculating this pressure and the implications of symmetry in the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the electrostatic pressure can be calculated using the formula involving charge and electric field, but arrives at a net force of zero due to symmetry.
  • Another participant clarifies that the integration limits for theta should be from [0, π/2] to avoid double counting points on the sphere.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the integral should only cover the northern hemisphere, reinforcing the idea that the net force on the entire sphere is zero, in line with Newton's third law.
  • One participant references a textbook (Griffiths) that provides a different perspective on the integration limits, prompting further inquiry into the reasoning behind these limits.
  • Another participant mentions that a classical electrodynamics text (Jackson) provides a clear explanation of the concepts involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate limits for integration and the implications of symmetry in the problem. There is no consensus on the correct approach, as multiple interpretations of the integration limits and their physical significance are presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential for misunderstanding the implications of symmetry in electrostatic problems and the specific definitions of integration limits in spherical coordinates. The discussion does not resolve these limitations.

gulsen
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
I have a metal sphere with the net charge q. And I'm trying to calculate the force that southern hemisphere exerts to northern hemisphere... and I get 0.

now, the electrostatic "pressure" is
[tex]\mathbf f = \sigma \mathbf E = (q/4\pi R^2) (q/4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2) \mathbf {e_r}[/tex]

due to the symmetry, the force will point at z direction, so integrating only the z component of "pressure" over the northern hemisphere should do it, right?

[tex]\int f_z dA = \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} \int_0^{2\pi} (q/4\pi R^2) (q/4\pi \epsilon_0 R^2) Rcos(\theta) R^2 sin(\theta) d\phi d\theta = 0?[/tex]

I found out that this's a question from Griffiths', and the answer manual says the [itex]\theta[/itex] integral should be within [itex][0,\pi/2][/itex], not [itex][-\pi/2, \pi/2][/itex].

Why is that?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It is the same reason that an integral over all space will have phi from 0 to 2 pi and theta from 0 to pi.

It has to do with not double calculating a section of the sphere, not passing over it twice.
 
You're only integrating over the top half of of the sphere, not the whole thing, so your theta integration should be truncated to only that side.

What you actually found is that the net force on the entire sphere that it exerts on itself is zero, which is a nice statement of Newton's third law.
 
gulsen said:
I found out that this's a question from Griffiths', and the answer manual says the [itex]\theta[/itex] integral should be within [itex][0,\pi/2][/itex], not [itex][-\pi/2, \pi/2][/itex].

Why is that?
Just to restate what Crosson and StatMechGuy already explained: Realize that your integral over [itex]\phi[/itex] goes from 0 to [itex]2 \pi[/itex], so counting negative values of [itex]\theta[/itex] counts those points twice. The point [itex](\theta, \phi) = (\theta, 0)[/itex] is the same point as [itex](\theta, \phi) = (-\theta, \pi)[/itex].
 
In classical electrodymamics BY jackson this is explained... clearly
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
974
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K