Determine the total electrostatic potential energy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the total electrostatic potential energy of a nonconducting sphere with radius r_0 and total charge Q. The derived formula from the user's attempt is U = \frac{3Q^2}{10\pi r_0 \epsilon_0}, while the textbook states the correct answer is U = \frac{3Q^2}{20\pi r_0 \epsilon_0}. The discrepancy arises from the user's use of the potential inside the sphere instead of at the surface, leading to a common error known as "double counting" in electrostatic calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and potential energy
  • Familiarity with the concept of electric fields in nonconducting materials
  • Knowledge of integration techniques in physics
  • Proficiency in using Coulomb's law and potential equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electrostatic potential energy for different charge distributions
  • Learn about the implications of double counting in electrostatic systems
  • Explore the differences between potential inside and on the surface of charged objects
  • Investigate the application of Gauss's law in calculating electric fields
USEFUL FOR

Students studying electrostatics, physics educators, and anyone involved in advanced physics problem-solving, particularly in the context of electrostatic potential energy calculations.

hitemup
Messages
81
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Determine the total electrostatic potential energy of a nonconducting sphere of radius r_0 carrying a total charge Q distributed uniformly thorughout its volume.

Homework Equations



U = qV

The Attempt at a Solution



\rho = \frac{Q}{4/3\pi r_0^3} = \frac{dq}{4\pi r^2dr}

Electric field inside a nonconductor sphere
V = \frac{kQ}{2r_0}(3-\frac{r^2}{r_0^2})

dU = Vdq

= \frac{kQ}{2r_0} (3 - \frac{r^2}{r_0^2}) \rho4\pi r^2 dr
= \frac{2kQ\pi\rho}{r_0}(3r^2 -\frac{r^4}{r_0^2} )dr

After integrating it over [from zero to r_0], I end up with the following result

\frac{3Q^2}{10\pi r_0 \epsilon_0}

But the correct answer according to the textbook is this.

\frac{3Q^2}{20\pi r_0 \epsilon_0}

It's almost the same result but missing a factor of two in the denominator. Is it because of the potential equation? Solutions manual uses potential at the surface, but in my answer I use potential inside a nonconductor. That may be the reason of 1/2. (kq/r_0 vs kq/2r_0* (3 - r^2/r_0^2))
RJZBQo.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a common mistake of "double counting". Suppose you had a system of 3 point charges. It is tempting to calculate the energy as ##U = \sum_{i=1}^3q_iV_i## where ##V_i## is the potential at the location of the ith charge due to the other two charges. But if you write out the terms explicitly you will see that you are counting the interaction of each pair of charges twice.
 
TSny said:
This is a common mistake of "double counting". Suppose you had a system of 3 point charges. It is tempting to calculate the energy as ##U = \sum_{i=1}^3q_iV_i## where ##V_i## is the potential at the location of the ith charge due to the other two charges. But if you write out the terms explicitly you will see that you are counting the interaction of each pair of charges twice.

I can see that we've double counted the pairs in your example. But where exactly am I doing that in my solution?
 
In the integral ##\int V dq##, ##V## represents the potential of the entire system at the point where ##dq## is located. So, consider two particular elements of charge ##dq_1## and ##dq_2##. The integral will include contributions ##V_1 dq_1## and ##V_2 dq_2##, where ##V_1## is the potential of the entire system at the location of ##dq_1## and ##V_2## is the potential of the entire system at ##dq_2##.

Note that ##V_1## will contain a contribution from ##dq_2## of the form ##\frac{k\; dq_2}{r_{12}}## where ##r_{12}## is the distance between ##dq_1## and ##dq_2##. So, the expression ##V_1 dq_1## contains a contribution of the form ##\frac{k\; dq_2\; dq_1}{r_{12}}##, which is the potential energy of interaction between ##dq_1## and ##dq_2##. But, by the same reasoning, you can see that ##V_2 dq_2## contains the same contribution again. So, the interaction between ##dq_1## and ##dq_2## is being counted twice.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K