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.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top