Deriving Coulomb's Law from Gauss' Law

Ralru
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



When I try working out the example below from PlanetPhysics, I wind up with 2PI rather than 4PI in my answer. Should I be considering my result valid for only a hemisphere and double it for a sphere--or am I just making a mistake in my math?

"As an example of the statement that Maxwell's equations completely define electromagnetic phenomena, it will be shown that Coulomb's law may be derived from Gauss' Law for electrostatics. Consider a point charge. We can obtain an expression for the Electric Field surrounding the charge. We surround the charge with a "virtual" sphere of radius R, then use Gauss' law in integral form."

"We rewrite this as a volume integral in spherical polar coordinates over the "virtual" sphere mentioned above, which has the point charge at its centre. Since the electric field is spherically symmetric (by assumption) the electric field is constant over this volume" (http://planetphysics.org/encyclopedia/DerivationOfCoulombsLawFromGaussLaw.html).




Homework Equations


[URL]http://www.fortunesofwar.com/C1.bmp[/URL]
[URL]http://www.fortunesofwar.com/C2.bmp[/URL]
[URL]http://www.fortunesofwar.com/C3.bmp[/URL]



The Attempt at a Solution


I first integrate Er sin theta dtheta between the limits of 0 and PI which gives Er(-cos theta) =2Er
Then I integrate 2Er dphi between the limits of 0 and 2PI giving 4'PI'Er
And then I integrate 4'PI'Er dr between the limits of 0 and R, giving 1/2 4'PI'Er^2 evaluated between 0 and R, giving 2'PI'ER^2.

I must be missing something here (it's been a while), so I'd appreciate knowing where I am making my mistake.

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You're not making a math mistake. The example is wrong. The electric field isn't constant over the volume, and the integral shouldn't be over the volume of the sphere. The integral should be over the surface area, where the electric field is of constant magnitude.
 
Thank you very much. It's nice to know that I have not gone completely insane yet. It's been quite a while since I played with this stuff--and after a long hiatus, one begins to doubt his/her own ability. Thanks again.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top