Electric Field of a Spherical Shell Cut in Half

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a metallic spherical shell of radius a that has been cut in half, with the two halves maintained at potentials +V₀ and -V₀. The original poster is attempting to determine the electric field at the center of the sphere, using potential derived from Laplace's equation in spherical coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster considers the electric field at the center to be zero based on their calculations but expresses uncertainty about this reasoning. Other participants challenge this assumption, suggesting that the electric field cannot be zero and discussing the implications of symmetry in the setup.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the calculation of the gradient of the potential, while others are exploring the implications of the potential at the center being zero. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity of the problem, with suggestions to further investigate the Poisson equation and the potential behavior at infinity.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential confusion arising from the spherical coordinates used in the gradient calculation and the implications of the potential not vanishing at infinity, which raises questions about the assumptions made in the problem setup.

Airsteve0
Messages
80
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A metallic spherical shell of radius a is cut in half at its equator. The two halves are separated very slightly and are maintained at potentials [itex]+V_{0}[/itex] and [itex]-V_{0}[/itex]. I am trying to find the electric field at the center of the sphere.


Homework Equations


The equation for the potential of the sphere was calculated using Laplace's equation in spherical polar coordinates using separation of variables, and was found to be as follows:

[itex]V(r,\vartheta)[/itex]=[itex]\sum[/itex]A[itex]_{2m+1}[/itex]r[itex]^{2m+1}[/itex][itex]P_{2m+1}(Cosθ[/itex])

where "P" represents Legendre polynomials.

The Attempt at a Solution


Trivially I think it should be zero and taking the gradient of the above equation seems to support this for r=0, θ=Pi/2; however, I am unsure if this is correct reasoning. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The E field at the center is certainly not zero.

Obviously, the potential at the center is zero V. So in moving a unit test charge from the center to one of the hemisphere's "poles" it can be seen that the average E field must be V/R where R is the radius of each hemisphere. By symmetry the E field is directed from the + pole to the - pole.

(You can also show that the potential at the center is zero by computing the work done in bringing a test charge from infinity to the center along an extension of the sphere's diameter piercing its equator. At each point the force on the test charge is zero, canceled by the + and - hemispherical, symmetrically distributed charges. Work = 0, potential =0.)

Having said that, I am at a total loss as to computing the actual E field at the center. Maybe I'll look at solving the Poisson equation also. Let you know ... sorry no one else has responded.

EDIT - see physics.usask.ca/~hirose/p812/notes/Ch2.pdf Example 3. This is obviously a toughie!
 
Last edited:
thank you, I appreciate it :)
 
Take the gradient and then set r to 0. Show us what you get for the gradient.
 
Last edited:
I've actually already handed in my homework so I don't have my answer with me anymore. However, when I took the gradient I found that I had two terms (mutiplied by an ugly constant out front with double factorials and such) which was something like:

contant * [(2m+1)*r^(2m)*P(Cos(theta)) + r^(2m+1)*P'(Cos(theta))]

For the spherical shell cut in half, to find the electric field at the center I set r=0 and theta = Pi/2. For these conditions I said that the only m-value for which the series is not directly zero is m=0. Therefore, r=0 only kills the second term. However, theta=Pi/2 kills the first term becuase P(Cos(Pi/2))=0. There must be an error in my math or reasoning somewhere, I just don't know where it is.
 
It looks like you used the incorrect expression for the gradient. In spherical coordinates, it's given by
$$\nabla V = \frac{\partial V}{\partial r}\hat{r} + \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial V}{\partial \theta} \hat{\theta} + \frac{1}{r \sin\theta} \frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi} \hat{\phi}$$ You don't just differentiate with respect to each variable, like you do with Cartesian coordinates. Also, your expression has no unit vectors.

The first term in the expansion is ##a_1 r P_1(\cos \theta) = a_1 r\cos \theta##, so you should be able to find that the first term in the gradient turns out to be ##a_1(\cos\theta \,\hat{r} - \sin\theta\,\hat{\theta})##, which is equal to ##a_1 \hat{z}##. The rest of the terms vanish when r=0.
 
Last edited:
ugh what a silly error I made. Thank you for the clarification.
 
It looks to me that the equation for the potential suggests that it doesn't vanish as r goes to infinity? How is that possible? I thought it went like 1/r ;(.
 
Airsteve0 found the interior solution, which is only valid for r < R.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K