Confused about the boundary conditions on a conductor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the boundary conditions for the electric potential of a conductor, specifically a metal sphere placed in an electric field. Participants explore the implications of these boundary conditions on the coefficients of the potential equations, addressing potential contradictions and the continuity of the potential across the boundary.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a contradiction in the boundary conditions, stating that the textbook claims V=0 at r=R leads to two conflicting equations for coefficients A and B.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the definitions of coefficients A and B, expressing confusion over the textbook's vague image.
  • Some participants suggest that the potential is continuous at the boundary, leading to the conclusion that terms involving A and B must equalize at r=R.
  • There is a mention of the possibility of an l=0 solution, indicating that the coefficients of A and B inside the sphere differ from those outside, which complicates the boundary condition analysis.
  • One participant emphasizes the need to label coefficients distinctly for inside and outside the sphere to avoid confusion.
  • Another participant points out that the textbook states there are no terms A_{l \, out} and B_{l \, in} due to divergence issues, which raises further questions about the problem's context.
  • The constant C in the potential equation is introduced, with one participant noting its relevance to the overall problem involving an uncharged metal sphere in an electric field.
  • A suggestion is made to consult alternative sources for potentially clearer explanations of the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the boundary conditions and the implications for the coefficients A and B. There is no consensus on the resolution of the contradictions presented, and multiple competing interpretations remain.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations due to missing context from the textbook, including the definitions of coefficients and the specific conditions under which the boundary conditions apply. The divergence of certain terms at specific points is also noted but not fully resolved.

bubblewrap
Messages
134
Reaction score
2
In the textbook (attached image) it says that the boundary condition is V=0 at r=R.
This creates a correlation that

##B_l=-A_l R^{2l+1}##

but the potential at any boundary is continuous so when we take this account, we get.

##B_l=A_l R^{2l+1}##

These two clearly contradict each other. I'd like to know why this contradiction occurred.

Many thanks.
 

Attachments

  • 20181029_013420.jpg
    20181029_013420.jpg
    14.8 KB · Views: 328
Physics news on Phys.org
See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplacesEquationSphericalCoordinates.html
I think you are ignoring the possibility of an ## l=0 ## solution. ## \\ ## You then have a separate solution inside the sphere that says ## V=0 ##, that has both ## A ## and ## B =0 ##. ## \\ ## The coefficients of ## A ## and ## B ## inside the sphere are different from what they are outside. The potential ## V ## is continuous across the boundary, but that doesn't mean that each of ## A ## and ## B ## stay the same. ## \\ ## Your first equation is correct, but for this case (## r \geq R ##) you only have the ## l=0 ## term. I'm not sure how you came up with your second equation. ## \\ ## You really need to label the coefficients ## A_{l \, out} ##, ## B_{l \, out} ##, ## A_{l \, in} ##, and ## B_{l \, in} ##. ## \\ ## Edit: I looked at it a second time=I misread the problem. I thought ## V=0 ## everywhere at ## r=R ## . Let me try again... It would help if you could show us the previous page, because otherwise it is a guessing game of what we are trying to solve.
 
Last edited:
BvU said:
Does the textbook also tell us what A and B are ?

I can't really see, the picture is so vague :mad:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/guidelines-for-students-and-helpers.686781/

How so ? can you elaborate ?

Since the term ##r^{l}## diverges as r>>R, it is not considered at r>R, similar logic was also applied for ##r^{-l-1}## for the case inside the sphere.

Since both terms should have the same value at r=R (since the potential is continuous at any boundary) the terms ##A_l R^{l}## and ##B_l R^{-l-1}## should have the same value, hence the correlation mentioned above.

However, if we consider the potential inside (and on the surface) of the potential to be 0 and we plug r=R into the original equation ##A_l R^{l}+B_l R^{-l-1}=0## the rest of the boundary condition would be the same, which means we would get two different answers for the boundary condition that doesn't seem to contradict each other.
 
Charles Link said:
See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LaplacesEquationSphericalCoordinates.html
I think you are ignoring the possibility of an ## l=0 ## solution. ## \\ ## You then have a separate solution inside the sphere that says ## V=0 ##, that has both ## A ## and ## B =0 ##. ## \\ ## The coefficients of ## A ## and ## B ## inside the sphere are different from what they are outside. The potential ## V ## is continuous across the boundary, but that doesn't mean that each of ## A ## and ## B ## stay the same. ## \\ ## Your first equation is correct, but for this case (## r \geq R ##) you only have the ## l=0 ## term. I'm not sure how you came up with your second equation. ## \\ ## You really need to label the coefficients ## A_{l \, out} ##, ## B_{l \, out} ##, ## A_{l \, in} ##, and ## B_{l \, in} ##. ## \\ ## Edit: I looked at it a second time=I misread the problem. I thought ## V=0 ## everywhere at ## r=R ## . Let me try again... It would help if you could show us the previous page, because otherwise it is a guessing game of what we are trying to solve.

But in the textbook it said that there are no terms ## A_{l \, out} ## and ## B_{l \, in} ##, since they diverge at the points relevant to them.
 
bubblewrap said:
But in the textbook it said that there are no terms ## A_{l \, out} ## and ## B_{l \, in} ##, since they diverge at the points relevant to them.
I can believe that, but if I don't see the previous page, I don't know exactly what the problem consists of. ## \\ ## e.g. What is the constant ## C ##? I shouldn't need to guess what they are referring to.
 
Charles Link said:
I can believe that, but if I don't see the previous page, I don't know exactly what the problem consists of. ## \\ ## e.g. What is the constant ## C ##? I shouldn't need to guess what they are referring to.

The constant is from the equation

##V=-E_0 z+C## for ##r>>R##

And the question was for a uncharged metal sphere of radius R that was placed in a electric field ##E_0## (which was taken to be the direction of z), find the potential outside the metal sphere. (Since the induced charges inside the sphere ball would distort the field/potential around it)
 
You might want to try a different source and compare what they both get for the same problem. The other source may also have an improved explanation. Try https://nptel.ac.in/courses/115101005/downloads/lectures-doc/Lecture-16.pdf
At the top of page 2 he talks about ## B_o =0 ## unless there is a charge on the sphere, as he mentions in the last sentence at the bottom of page 2.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
870
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K