Deriving E of a charged spherical shell from V

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the electric field (E) of a charged spherical shell from the electric potential (V). The participants emphasize the necessity of performing two integrations: one for points outside the shell and another for points inside. The correct approach yields an electric field of zero (E=0) for points within the shell, as the separation distance in the integral becomes constant. The participants also address the importance of correctly stating the equations and the physical justification for the mathematical steps taken.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric fields and potentials in electrostatics
  • Familiarity with integration techniques in calculus
  • Knowledge of spherical symmetry in charge distributions
  • Proficiency in using LaTeX for mathematical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric fields from potentials in electrostatics
  • Learn about Gauss's Law and its application to spherical charge distributions
  • Explore the mathematical techniques for evaluating integrals in three dimensions
  • Review the physical interpretation of electric fields within charged conductors
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to electric fields and potentials in charged spherical shells.

FallenLeibniz
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
Wrote my question up in Latex

Update: I have corrected the mistake when I stated the "textbook" version of the equation that the problem requires to be used. I have reposted the pdf with the same name.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to do two integrations. One for finding the field at points outside the shell and the other for finding the field at points inside the shell. It looks like you have correctly done the one for points outside the shell. You should get a different result for points inside the shell.
 
I've taken another look at my integral I have set up. Now it seems as if it would work from a mathematical standpoint that for r<R, the separation distance (i.e. little "r" in my integral) becomes equal to R which would give me a constant for the potential and therefore an E value of 0, however I don't see a justification for setting r=R within the integral on physical grounds.

Note: I have realized that I have miswritten the "overall" equation in my second section. I apologize and will correct it now.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K