Effect of negative electrostatic potential on infinite wire?

Loonuh
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am working on a problem that states the following:

Imagine an infinite straight wire carrying a current I and uniformly
charged to a negative electrostatic potential Φ


I know here that the current I will set up a magnetic field around the wire that abides to the right hand rule with magnitude in Eqn. (1).

However, what is the importance of there being a negative electrostatic potential Φ? Does this mean that the wire sets up an electrostatic ##\vec{E}## field in addition to the magnetic field?

Homework Equations



##
\begin{align}
B(r) = \frac{I\mu_0}{2\pi r} \\
\nabla \cdot \vec{E} = 0
\end{align}
##

The Attempt at a Solution


##
\begin{align*}
\nabla \cdot \vec{E} &= 0\\
\frac{d^2 V}{dr^2} &= 0\\
\therefore V &= Cr + D\\
\end{align*}
##

At r = 0, V = ##\phi##

##
\begin{align*}
V = Cr + \phi
\end{align*}
##

At r = ##\infty##, V = 0 ...?

This can't possibly be right now and it appears I made some mistake.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Loonuh said:

Homework Statement



I am working on a problem that states the following:

Imagine an infinite straight wire carrying a current I and uniformly
charged to a negative electrostatic potential Φ


I know here that the current I will set up a magnetic field around the wire that abides to the right hand rule with magnitude in Eqn. (1).

However, what is the importance of there being a negative electrostatic potential Φ? Does this mean that the wire sets up an electrostatic ##\vec{E}## field in addition to the magnetic field?

Homework Equations



##
\begin{align}
B(r) = \frac{I\mu_0}{2\pi r} \\
\nabla \cdot \vec{E} = 0
\end{align}
##

The Attempt at a Solution



\begin{align*}
\nabla \cdot \vec{E} &= 0\\
\frac{d^2 V}{dr^2} &= 0\\
\therefore V &= Cr + D\\
\end{align*}
That's not the correct expression for the Laplacian in cylindrical coordinates.

At r = 0, V = ##\phi##
\begin{align*}
V = Cr + \phi
\end{align*}

At r = ##\infty##, V = 0 ...?

This can't possibly be right now and it appears I made some mistake.
Are you supposed to take the wire as infinitely thin? Even after you get the proper expression for the potential, you'll run into math problems if you assume the wire doesn't have a finite radius.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Loonuh
Wow, that was a very obvious mistake, thanks for that correction. I believe that I am free to assume that the wire is of a finite radius.

Solving now where the radial derivative term of the Laplacian is expressed as:## \nabla^2 = \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}) ...##

We have
##
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r \frac{\partial V}{\partial r}) = 0
\end{align*}
##

Let ##y = \dot{V}##, then:

##
\begin{align*}
\dot{y} + \frac{1}{r}y &= 0\\
\frac{\dot{y}}{y} &= \frac{-1}{r}\\
\frac{dy}{y} &= \frac{-dr}{r}\\
\ln(y) &= -\ln(r) + C\\
\\
\therefore y &= Cr^{-1}\\
\dot{V} &= Cr^{-1}\\
dV &= Cr^{-1}dr\\
\\
\therefore V(r) &= C_0\ln(r) + C_1\\
\end{align*}
##

Now how do I move forward with this new expression for the potential assuming that the wire has some finite radius ##r_0##?

How to proceed from here can be found here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...al-of-infinite-wire-with-poisson-laplace-equa
 
Last edited:
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