Comparing an infinite grounded conducting plate to a system of point charges

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of an infinite grounded conducting plate with a system of point charges. The original poster presents a problem involving the potential and electric field configurations for a point charge near a conducting plate and a point charge configuration, exploring the implications of the uniqueness theorem in electrostatics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the potential function and electric field for two configurations involving a point charge and a conducting plate. They express confusion regarding the surface charge density and its sign, questioning the textbook's answer. Other participants engage by verifying calculations and discussing the physical implications of the charge distributions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively exploring the problem, with some providing guidance on the correctness of the original poster's calculations. There is a recognition of differing interpretations regarding the sign of the surface charge density, and while some participants support the original poster's findings, there is no explicit consensus on the final answer.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential confusion stemming from textbook answers and the assumptions made about charge distributions in electrostatic configurations. The uniqueness theorem is referenced as a key concept in understanding the relationship between the two configurations.

Lisa...
Messages
189
Reaction score
0
A point charge q is a distance d from a grounded conducting plate of infinite extent (figure a). For this configuration the potential V is zero, both at all points infinitely far from the particle in all directions and at all points on the conducting plate. Consider a set of coordinate axes with the particle located on the x-axis at x=d. A second configuration (figure b) has the conducting plane replaced by a particle of charge -q located on the x-axis at x=-d.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3829/naamloos9zt.th.gif

a) Show that for the second configuration the potential function is zero at all points infinitely far from the particle in all directions and at all points on the yz plane- just as was the case for the first configuration.


I've done the following:
V= [tex]\Sigma[/tex] V= V-q= 1 + V+q= 2

V-q= [tex]\frac{-kq}{r_1}[/tex] with r1 is the distance from -q to a certain point P in space (x,y,z)

V+q= [tex]\frac{kq}{r_2}[/tex] with r2 is the distance from +q to a certain point P in space (x,y,z)

V= kq [tex](\frac{1}{r_2} - \frac{1}{r_1})[/tex]= [tex]kq (\frac{r_1-r_2}{r_2 r_1})[/tex]

***V=0 if r1 r2 = [tex]\pm \infty[/tex] so if r1=r2= [tex]\pm \infty[/tex]

***V=0 is r1-r2=0 so if r1=r2

[tex]\sqrt{(x+d)^2 + y^2 + z^2}=\sqrt{(x-d)^2 + y^2 + z^2}[/tex]
[tex](x+d)^2 + y^2 + z^2=(x-d)^2 + y^2 + z^2[/tex]
[tex](x+d)^2 =(x-d)^2[/tex]
[tex]x^2 + 2xd + d^2= x^2 - 2xd + d^2[/tex]
2xd= -2xd
4xd=0
x=0, therefore V=0 if x=0, which means V=0 in the whole yz plane.


Okay so far so good, but the trouble starts in the following part:

b) A theorem, called the uniqueness theorem, shows that throughout the half-space x>0 the potential function V- and thus the electric field E- for the two configurations are identical. Using this result, obtain the electric field E at every point in the yz plane in the second configuration. (The uniqueness theorem tells us that in the first configuration the electric field at each point in the yz plane is the same as it is in the second configuration.) Use this result to find the surface charge density [tex]\sigma[/tex] at each point in the conducting plane (in the first configuration)

I've come this far till now:
V= kq [tex](\frac{1}{r_2} - \frac{1}{r_1}[/tex]= kq [tex](\frac{1}{\sqrt{(x-d)^2 + y^2 + z^2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{(x+d)^2 + y^2 + z^2}})[/tex]

Ex= - [tex]\frac{\delta V}{\delta x}[/tex]= -kq ([tex]\frac{(d-x)}{((x-d)^2 + y^2 + z^2)^1,5)} + \frac{(d+x)}{((x+d)^2 + y^2 + z^2)^\frac{3}{2})} )[/tex]

Ey= - [tex]\frac{\delta V}{\delta y}[/tex]= -kq ([tex]\frac{(-y)}{((x-d)^2 + y^2 + z^2)^1,5)} + \frac{(y)}{((x+d)^2 + y^2 + z^2)^\frac{3}{2})} )[/tex]

Ez= - [tex]\frac{\delta V}{\delta z}[/tex]= -kq ([tex]\frac{(-z)}{((x-d)^2 + y^2 + z^2)^1,5)} + \frac{(z)}{((x+d)^2 + y^2 + z^2)^\frac{3}{2})} )[/tex]

E in the yz plane is when x=0. Substituting x=0 in Ex, Ey and Ez gives:

Ex= [tex]-kq \frac{2d}{(d^2 + y^2 + z^2)^\frac{3}{2}}[/tex]
Ey= 0
Ez= 0

Because r= [tex]\sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}[/tex]
[tex]r^2= x^2 + y^2 + z^2[/tex].
In the yz plane x=0, therefore [tex]r^2= y^2 + z^2[/tex].

Substituting this into Ex gives:
Ex= [tex]-kq \frac{2d}{(d^2 + r^2)^\frac{3}{2}}[/tex]

The x direction is perpendicular to the yz plane, therefore the electric field given by Ex is perpendicular to the infinite yz conductor plane.

The formula for the component of the electric field perpendicular to the conductor is

[tex]E_n= \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}[/tex] therefore
[tex]\sigma = E_n \epsilon_0[/tex] with
En= Ex=[tex]-kq \frac{2d}{(d^2 + r^2)^\frac{3}{2}}[/tex]
[tex]\epsilon_0 = \frac{1}{4 \pi k}[/tex]

Substituting in the formula of sigma gives:
[tex]\sigma= \frac{-kq2d}{4 \pi k (d^2 + r^2)^\frac{3}{2}} = \frac{-qd}{2 \pi (d^2 + r^2)^\frac{3}{2}}[/tex]

Though my textbook tells me the correct answer should be

[tex]\sigma= \frac{qd}{4 \pi (d^2 + r^2)^\frac{3}{2}}[/tex]

Where did I go wrong? I would REALLY appreciate it if you can help me with this problem. I've checked my work plenty of times, but can't see my mistake.

THANK YOU FOR READING! :biggrin:



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Lisa... said:
The formula for the component of the electric field perpendicular to the conductor is

[tex]E_n= \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}[/tex] therefore


[/b]
Shouldn't that be
[tex]E_n=\frac{\sigma}{2\epsilon_0}[/tex]?
 
You are right. The book's answer makes no sense at all, as the charge on the surface of the infinite plane must obviously be negative to counter the positive charge from above. If the charge on the plane were positive, then the field would not at all act like a dipole, unlike the first example.

I double checked your result with the Pollack and Stump E&M book, and my professors notes from going over this problem recently, and they both match your result exactly. Given the book's answer makes no sense physically, you are definitely right.

~Lyuokdea
 
Last edited:
Wow thanks a hell of a lot Lyuokdea! I found it pretty odd indeed that the books answer was positive...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
9K
Replies
64
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K