Distance from arbitrary shape so we can treat it as a point charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the minimum distance from the origin at which a non-uniform charge distribution can be treated as a point charge. Gauss' law is suggested as a relevant tool, emphasizing that the point of interest must be outside the shape for the electric field to be approximated as that of a point charge. The worst-case scenario involves configurations like two charges with opposite signs, which complicate the field calculations. The professor clarified that achieving a 1% margin of error is crucial for accuracy in the class, indicating the need for precise calculations. Ultimately, the challenge lies in defining a radius where the monopole component dominates, as this is subjective and depends on the specific charge distribution.
oddjobmj
Messages
305
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Non-uniform charge distribution over a randomly shaped object. This object will fit inside a sphere centered on the origin with radius r. What is the minimum distance from the origin that we can assume such that we can treat the electric field as if it were generated by a point charge at the origin?


Homework Equations


Gauss' law?

\vec{E}=k\frac{q}{R^2}\hat{R}

The Attempt at a Solution


My first guess is Gauss' law because it works with arbitrary shapes. As long as we can ensure that our point of interest is outside our shape the field (or the flux leaving the surface, at least...) should be equivalent to one from a point charge. In other words as long as R>r where R=point's distance from the origin. This is new material to me though so I am struggling a little to wrap my head around this and relating flux and field and the shape/symmetry is throwing me off. I'm questioning this assumption now:

My professor recently noted that we should consider the worst case scenario (maximum divergence from a point) and implied some (simple) calculations are involved. I believe the 'worst case' scenario would be either 1) where the shape is actually a sphere with radius r or 2) it is a point charge somewhere besides the origin.

If it is a point charge on, say, the x-axis where x=r AND we calculate the field at x=-r while assuming that the point charge is at the origin our estimation will be off by a factor of 4 since R is squared and our assumed distance is one half the actual.

Any suggestions? I really want to make sure I understand this because I believe it is pretty fundamental but apparently it's giving our class quite a bit of trouble.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The worst case would be two point charges with charge Q+q and -Q, respectively, where Q >> q, located in x = r and x = -r respectively. In addition to the change in the monopole field, this will also give you a large dipole component which falls off as 1/r^3.

The case of the spherical shell is not a worst case as the field outside the sphere shows the exact same spherical symmetry as that of a point charge.

It is not really possible to define a radius where the field is dominated by the monopole component as it will involve some arbitrariness in deciding what "dominated" means. R>r would typically not be enough to make the field a monopole field.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thank you for your input, Orodruin!

Well, I will say that the professor made it clear several times (and it occurs in text right before this problem) that the acceptable margin of error for our answers in the class is 1%. I believe that this answer has to be within 1% which should allow me to solve for the minimum distance.

Given two point charges at x=r and x=-r, as you noted, I should calculate the field at some point on, say, the y-axis?

Also, I am a little confused about the magnitudes you chose for those charges. To be clear, Q1 and Q2 are very nearly equal in magnitude but also opposite in sign. They differ in magnitude by q? Why not Q1=-Q2?

Edit: Also, it does state that our object is actually a single charged mass. It does have a non-uniform distribution though so I guess it wouldn't be too big of a stretch to distribute the charges in the above fashion.
 
Last edited:
oddjobmj said:
Also, I am a little confused about the magnitudes you chose for those charges. To be clear, Q1 and Q2 are very nearly equal in magnitude but also opposite in sign. They differ in magnitude by q? Why not Q1=-Q2?

If Q1 = -Q2 the total charge in the volume is zero and not q. Regardless of what you do, you can never find an R that will be large enough if you allow arbitrarily large charges Q.
 
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 hanged 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