Electric field inside a sphere of charge density A/r

AI Thread Summary
The electric field inside a sphere with a charge density of ρ = A/r is calculated using Gauss' law, resulting in E = A/(2ε₀), which surprisingly shows no dependence on radius R. This independence arises because the total charge within the sphere increases with R², while the surface area over which the electric field spreads also increases with R², leading to a cancellation of effects. The integration of the charge density over the sphere clarifies this relationship. Additionally, there is a discussion on the integration process in spherical coordinates, highlighting common integrals encountered in calculus. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the behavior of electric fields in varying charge distributions.
Repetit
Messages
128
Reaction score
2
What is the electric field inside a sphere of radius R when the charge density is given by:
\rho=\frac{A}{r}
Where A is a constant, and r is the radius at where the charge density is to be evaluated. By Gauss' law I have calculated the field to be equal to:
E=\frac{A}{2\epsilon_0}
But that seems quite odd as the field is then independent of the radius. But could this be explained by the fact that the charge density is inversely proportional to the radius?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's correct. If you integrate the charge density over a sphere of radius R it's a little easier to see why this is so:

\int_0^R \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{\pi} \rho r^2 \sin^2\theta d\theta d\phi dr
\int_0^R \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{\pi} A r \sin^2\theta d\theta d\phi dr
A 4 \pi \int_0^R r dr
A 2 \pi R^2

So, the amount of charge which is inside a sphere of radius R increases with the square of the radius. The surface area of that sphere which the electric field lines are spread out over also increases with R^2, although it's larger by a factor of two. This is why there is no R dependence on the electric field, the two competing effects of total charge and surface area over which the electric field is spread cancel out.
 
I'm just starting my second Calculus course, those nested integrals look fun :eek:
 
Ubern0va said:
I'm just starting my second Calculus course, those nested integrals look fun :eek:

It's really not bad, you just start on the inside and work your way out. With a lot of problems you run into the same integrals over and over again and you just end up memorizing the answer, for instance:

\int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{\pi} \sin^2\theta d\theta d\phi = 4 \pi

comes up all the time (such as in this problem).
 
This is good, except I'm pretty sure the volume element on that integral is r2 sin[theta] dr d[theta] d[phi] for spherical coordinates instead of having a sin2 [theta] component. This is from Griffith's Intro to E&M
 
Last edited:
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