Electric field of a ring:integrate over dq or ds?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the electric field generated by a uniformly charged ring at a point on an axis perpendicular to the ring's plane. Participants explore the integration methods involving differential charge elements, specifically whether to integrate over charge density (dq) or length (ds), and the implications of these choices on the resulting electric field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of integrating over ds when integrating over dq yields the same total charge q.
  • Another participant suggests that if the charge density were non-uniform, the integration would need to account for λ(s) as a function of s, raising a question about how to integrate directly over dq in that scenario.
  • Some participants express confusion about whether integrating over dq and ds could yield different results, particularly when considering the directional components of the electric field.
  • A later reply clarifies that while dq and λds are related, the integrals for the electric field must also include a directional element that affects the resultant field's direction and magnitude.
  • Participants discuss specific cases, such as varying linear charge density and constant charge density, and how these affect the calculation of the electric field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to integrate for the electric field, with multiple competing views on the necessity and implications of integrating over dq versus ds. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal method for different charge density scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the conditions under which integrating over dq or ds is appropriate, particularly in cases of non-uniform charge density. The discussion highlights the importance of directional components in electric field calculations, which may not be fully addressed by simply integrating charge elements.

Tiago3434
Hi people, I was reading on my textbook on electromagnetism (Halliday) about using integral to field the electric field of a charged ring (1D) at a point P located on an axis perpendicular to the ring's plane. The ring is uniformly charged. The book (and my professor) both breakdown each element of charge dq into its linear charge density times an element of length, or λds. I'm ok with the math from that point on, but I noticed that you can get the same result just integrating over dq, given that the integral of dq is q. Is my idea wrong, or is there a reason for adding that extra step?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose the charge density were not uniform. Integrating over s, you would let λ be some function of s, λ(s). Then your integral would contain λ(s)ds. How would you integrate directly over dq in that case?
 
oh, ok I got you point. Thanks, jtbell
 
Sorry if the question is stupid, but thinking a bit further about this, wouldn't the overall charge just add up to q again (even if all the dq weren't equal)?
 
Or (sorry if this is a calculus question) can you only integrate over a differential dx if dx is constant? Is that the case?
 
Tiago3434 said:
Sorry if the question is stupid, but thinking a bit further about this, wouldn't the overall charge just add up to q again (even if all the dq weren't equal)?

The integral of λ(s)ds would be q, the total charge. But you are trying to calculate the electric field, E, at a point, P, on the axis, not the total charge. λ(s) can't be taken out of the integral over s in that case.
 
I'm sorry but I don't get it. Wouldn't the answer just end up being the same, as dq=λ(s)ds?
 
Like, if dq=λds, I don't understand how come the integrals ∫dq and ∫λds could end up being different.
 
Tiago3434 said:
Like, if dq=λds, I don't understand how come the integrals ∫dq and ∫λds could end up being different.
Those integrals are not different but those are not the integrals for the electric field. The integral for the electric field also contains a directional element ##\hat{r}## which may weight the electric field more in one direction than the other.

In general
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\int\frac{dq}{r^{2}}\hat{r}$$

As an example, let's assume you are looking for ##\mathbf{E}## at the center of the ring, then ##\hat{r}=-\text{cos}\theta\hat{x}-\text{sin}\theta\hat{y}##. If the ring has a radius of ##R## then
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{-1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\int\frac{dq}{R^{2}}(\text{cos}\theta\hat{x}+\text{sin}\theta\hat{y})$$
Now let's assume the ring has some varying linear charge density ##\lambda=\alpha\text{cos}\theta## then
$$dq=\lambda Rd\theta=\alpha\text{cos}\theta\;Rd\theta$$
The electric field is now
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{-1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{\alpha\text{cos}\theta\;Rd\theta}{R^{2}}(\text{cos}\theta\hat{x}+\text{sin}\theta\hat{y})$$
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{-\alpha}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}R}\left[\int_{0}^{2\pi}\text{cos}^{2}\theta\;d\theta\hat{x}+\int_{0}^{2\pi}\text{cos}\theta\text{sin}\theta\;d\theta\hat{y})\right]$$
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{-\alpha}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}R}\left[\pi \hat{x}+0\hat{y})\right]=\frac{-\alpha}{4\epsilon_{0}R}\hat{x}$$
Now if we consider the case of constant charge density ##\lambda##
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{-1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{\lambda Rd\theta}{R^{2}}(\text{cos}\theta\hat{x}+\text{sin}\theta\hat{y})$$
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{-\lambda}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}R}\left[\int_{0}^{2\pi}\text{cos}\theta\;d\theta\hat{x}+\int_{0}^{2\pi}\text{sin}\theta\;d\theta\hat{y})\right]$$
$$\mathbf{E}=\frac{-\lambda}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}R}\left[0 \hat{x}+0\hat{y})\right]=0$$
These two answers are different because including the direction ##\hat{r}## selects which parts of the charge density will add together in some direction and which will cancel out in another direction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
533
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K