Continous charge or mass distributions

AI Thread Summary
Calculating the electric field or center of mass for numerous charges or masses often involves using integrals, as continuous distributions are assumed. However, this raises questions about the validity of treating discrete entities as continuous, suggesting it may be an approximation rather than a precise representation. In physics, models typically rely on continuous functions for practicality, especially in complex systems like fluid dynamics, where accounting for every particle's position is impractical. The discussion emphasizes that while discrete values exist, they may not be relevant at larger scales where continuous approximations are more applicable. Ultimately, the context and scale of the problem determine whether treating distributions as continuous is appropriate.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Often you want to calculate the electric field of a lot of charges or the center of mass for a lot of small masses.

When we have a rigid body or something similar in the world of electrodynamics, my book tells me always to calculate the cm or total field as an integral, because "the distributions are continous". Now I have always speculated about this line "they are continous". Because in this world everything is discrete. So isn't it just an approximation when you replace the sum of a hell of a lot of elements with an integral?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
Often you want to calculate the electric field of a lot of charges or the center of mass for a lot of small masses.

When we have a rigid body or something similar in the world of electrodynamics, my book tells me always to calculate the cm or total field as an integral, because "the distributions are continous". Now I have always speculated about this line "they are continous". Because in this world everything is discrete. So isn't it just an approximation when you replace the sum of a hell of a lot of elements with an integral?

What if it is an approximation? Physics is about tractable models of the world. Often such models are based upon continuous manifolds, continuous and differentiable functions, conservation principles, and other such niceties where warranted. Intractable models have limited appeal.

Every particle has an uncertainty of position which is further blurred over even brief time periods. How would you set up a calculation in, say, fluid dynamics, if each time you had to account for every atom's location? Could you ever complete the calculation in time to be relevant?

Feel free employ the machinery of sigma notation rather than integral calculus whenever you can pinpoint the location of every discrete entity for your calculations :smile:

Which decimal place are you worried about and why? :devil:
 
It's a matter of scale as always. If I spin a bike tire there's only certain discrete values of angular momentum it can have (scaled by h), but on the scale I'm looking at I can't even hope to detect the discrete values so it's not really even an approximation to say that it's continuous.

If charges are only spaced out at atomic levels then you're even approaching the limit of self energy, and the point where classical electrodynamics breaks. So, looking at the charge distribution from further out, where electrodynamics is more valid, you can call the distribution continuous. Of course, if you charge up some pith balls and place them in a volume, maybe you shouldn't be calling them continuous.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top