Calculating the Divergence of an Electrostatic Field at the Origin

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the divergence of the electrostatic field E generated by a point charge q, represented by the equation E = (q / (4πεr³)) r. The divergence is calculated using the formula ∇·E = ∂Ex/∂x + ∂Ey/∂y + ∂Ez/∂z, leading to the conclusion that ∇·E = 0 at points away from the origin. However, at the origin, the divergence is defined as ∇·E = ρ/ε, where ρ is the charge density, which is non-zero only at the location of the point charge.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and point charges
  • Familiarity with vector calculus, specifically divergence
  • Knowledge of Maxwell's equations, particularly Gauss's law
  • Basic concepts of electric fields and potentials
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Gauss's law and its implications for point charges
  • Learn about the mathematical properties of divergence in vector fields
  • Explore the relationship between electric field E and electric potential Φ
  • Investigate charge density ρ in different charge distributions
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, electrical engineers, and anyone studying electromagnetism, particularly those focusing on electrostatic fields and their mathematical properties.

rado5
Messages
71
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The electrostatic field of a point charge q is E=\frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon r^3} r. Calculate the divergence of E. What happens at the origin?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Well the solution is: \nabla.E= \partialEx/\partialx + \partialEy/\partialy + \partialEz/\partialz

Ex= \frac{qx}{4 \pi \epsilon r^3} and Ey=\frac{qy}{4 \pi \epsilon r^3} and Ez=\frac{qz}{4 \pi \epsilon r^3} and r= \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}

After calculation I found the result \nabla.E= \partialEx/\partialx + \partialEy/\partialy + \partialEz/\partialz= 0
Is it correct? I think it is wrong! Then why it is wrong?
Somewhere else I saw that the result was \nabla.E= \frac{\rho}{\epsilon} !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rado5 said:
Somewhere else I saw that the result was \nabla.E= \frac{\rho}{\epsilon} !

What is \rho in this case (a point particle)? It's definitely zero at most places, but where is it not?
 
clamtrox said:
What is \rho in this case (a point particle)? It's definitely zero at most places, but where is it not?

I really don't know what \rho is here! But do you mean that I calculated it in the correct way?
 
All the charge of a pointlike particle is located at a single point (that's why it's called pointlike). At what coordinates is the charge located in this case? What values does the electric field get there?
 
clamtrox said:
All the charge of a pointlike particle is located at a single point (that's why it's called pointlike). At what coordinates is the charge located in this case? What values does the electric field get there?
Oh thank you for telling me the definition of a pointlike particle, because I didn't know that all the charge is located at a single point! The coordinate is cartesian. I have to translate the main problem, well I will try.
The main problem is this:

If E is the electrostatic field and \Phi is the potential of the electrostatic field prove that: \int\rho\Phidv= \epsilon\int E2dv by using this theorem
\nabla.(\PhiE)=\Phi(\nabla.E)+(\nabla\Phi).E

It is actually an example and in the solution it says that we know \nabla.E=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon} and also E=-\nabla\Phi and also it says that \int\nabla.(\PhiE)dv= 0
Do you think it's a correct problem? I mean is it right or wrong, the solution!
 
rado5 said:
Oh thank you for telling me the definition of a pointlike particle, because I didn't know that all the charge is located at a single point! The coordinate is cartesian.

So do you now know what the charge distribution is?

You also misunderstood my question. At what location is the particle in? In terms of x,y,z? And what is the value of the electric field there?


rado5 said:
If E is the electrostatic field and \Phi is the potential of the electrostatic field prove that: \int\rho\Phidv= \epsilon\int E2dv by using this theorem
\nabla.(\PhiE)=\Phi(\nabla.E)+(\nabla\Phi).E

It is actually an example and in the solution it says that we know \nabla.E=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon} and also E=-\nabla\Phi and also it says that \int\nabla.(\PhiE)dv= 0
Do you think it's a correct problem? I mean is it right or wrong, the solution!

This problem has nothing to do with the question you asked earlier :) To solve it, you only have to use the formulas that you are given.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K