Electric Field of a Spherical Shell w/ Uniform Charge Density

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the electric field generated by a spherical shell with a uniform charge density, particularly focusing on the effects of removing a small circular piece from the shell. The original poster is exploring the implications of this modification on the electric field at various points, including the center of the hole and the center of the spherical shell itself.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the superposition principle and Gauss' law to determine the electric field at the center of the hole and the center of the shell. Some participants question the validity of the assumptions made regarding the electric field of the disk and its approximation as the distance from the disk increases.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's reasoning, providing hints about potential errors and discussing the implications of distance on the electric field calculations. There is an exploration of different geometries and approximations, with no explicit consensus reached on the correct approach yet.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes considerations of the unit system being used (CGS units) and how it affects the expressions for electric fields. There is also a mention of the need for integration when not at the center of the disk, indicating the complexity of the problem.

bodensee9
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Hello
I have a conceptual question about the following. Suppose I have a spherical shell with charge density [tex]\sigma[/tex] that is uniformly distributed throughout its surface. My shell has radius a. Then I cut a little circular piece of radius b with b << a. Then I know that my electric field at the center of this little hole is given by [tex]2\pi\sigma[/tex], because I can treat my shell with hole as a perfect shell, with [tex]E = 4\pi\sigma[/tex] going outwards and then a little piece with [tex]2\pi\sigma[/tex] going inwards (and then I add the two). So then at the center of this sphere, I would have a field of magnitude
[tex]2\pi\sigma[/tex] going inwards because inside the shell I have no field? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are several errors here, not the least of which is the assumption of the field of the small disk of radius b. Hint: the disk of radius b is neither a conductor nor an infinite plane. Also, there seems to be extra π's and missing ε's, but that may be a characteristic of your unit system.
 
thanks, but actually, could you let me know what I'm doing wrong with the superposition principle? by Gauss' law, the field on one side of the disk - field on other side of the disk = 4pi(sigma). So don't we have 2E*A (area) = 4pi(sigma)*A, so E on each side = 2pi(sigma). Actually, I'm pretty sure that at the center of the little hole this is the right answer, but I'm just wondering about the center of the spherical shell. I'm using CGS units. In these units k = 1, so I don't have any epsilons or pi's. Thanks.
 
OK, I think that explains your π's and ε's. So, I think that you found the correct field value at the center of the hole.

However, you cannot assume that the field from the negative disk is independent of position in general. The E=2πσ expression (for an infinite, uniform surface charge) works at the center of the disk because, at that distance, the disk is approximately infinite (compared to the distance from the disk), and the disk is symmetric about the center. If you either move away from the center, or move away from the disk, then this approximation does not hold. In particular, the center of the shell is at a distance d>>b away from the disk, so E=2πσ is a terrible approximation there. However, can you think of a different geometry that might approximate the disk well, when you are so far away that it looks very tiny, like a single ...
 
so if I'm very far away from the disk, would it be like a point charge? so then does that mean I will only have E = q/r^2? where q is the charge on the disk?
just to follow up, so if I'm not at the center of the disk, then I will need to integrate? In this case, wouldn't I be better off integrating over the whole sphere with the missing hole then? For example, will I have
[tex]dE = \frac{dA\sigma}{r^{2}}cos\alpha[/tex]
where
[tex]\alpha[/tex] is the angle approximated by my distance l from the center of the disk over R (radius of shell?)
Thanks.
 
bodensee9 said:
so if I'm very far away from the disk, would it be like a point charge?
That would be my approximation.

bodensee9 said:
just to follow up, so if I'm not at the center of the disk, then I will need to integrate? In this case, wouldn't I be better off integrating over the whole sphere with the missing hole then?
I don't know. Do you need to consider this case as well?
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
973
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K