How to Correctly Express Electric Charge Density for a Point Charge?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on expressing the electric charge density ρ(r) for a point charge q at position r'. The initial proposal of ρ(r) = (q / (4πR^2))δ(r - r') is critiqued for implying incorrect units of charge per unit volume. The correct form involves using the three-dimensional delta function, represented as δ^(3)(r - r'), which ensures that the volume integral over any region containing the point charge yields the total charge q. The conversation also clarifies that n-dimensional delta functions have dimensions of (length)^-n, reinforcing the importance of dimensional consistency in physical equations. Understanding these concepts resolves confusion about the units involved in charge density.
Yeldar
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
(src: Intro to Electrodynamics, Griffith, Problem 1.46a)
Q: Write an expression for the electric charge density \rho (r) of a point charge q at r^'. Make sure that the volume integral of \rho equals q.

Now, Closest I can seem to come up with is:


\rho(r)=\frac{q}{4*Pi*R^2}\delta(r-r^')

But, the problem I see with this, is that while yes, integrating this over any volume V that enclosed the point charge will return q, but that q would have to have units of charge/unit_volume which just dosent make sense. Or am I missing something?

Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that delta function should be 3D: \delta^{(3)}(\vec{r}-\vec{r}'). Note that the n-D delta function has dimensions of (length)-n.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, sorry missed that. Have the \delta^3 on my paper, just forgot to type it in.

I don't understand how n-D delta functions have a dimension of (length)-n, could you explain that perhaps?
 
Sure, let's look at the 1D case. Consider the following integral:

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\delta(x)dx=1

The right side of that is 1. Not 1 meter or 1 Joule, just plain old 1. So if the units of dx are meters, then what must the units of the delta function be? Inverse meters.

Similar results hold for higher dimensional cases.
 
Okay, that makes sense.

Thanks for your help, this was driving me crazy, I couldn't figure out why units were not making sense.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top