Electric potential of a charged ring

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the electric potential of a uniformly charged ring with a specified radius and linear charge density. Participants are examining the mathematical expressions and reasoning involved in the solution process, particularly focusing on the implications of symmetry and the use of spherical harmonics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the validity of substitutions made in the solution, particularly regarding the use of spherical harmonics and the implications of choosing a specific angle (phi=0). There is discussion about the integral resulting from this choice and its implications for the value of m.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the symmetry of the problem and the effects of the chosen angle on the potential. Some have offered clarifications about the integral's outcomes for different values of m, while others are still exploring the implications of these mathematical manipulations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the choice of phi=0 is based on the symmetry of the problem, and there is an ongoing examination of whether this choice implies that m must be zero or if it simply allows for a more straightforward evaluation of the potential.

MMS
Messages
146
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


Find the electric potential of a ring of radius R that is charged uniformly with a linear charge density λ.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I wasn't sure which section to post this in but I finally landed here. It isn't really a problem that I'm troubled solving. Rather, it's something in the solution given I'm troubled understanding.
Here's the full solution: http://docdro.id/lhpIgyS

First off, I believe they messed up a little substituting Y_lm (not Y*_lm) as the exponent is exp(-i*m*phi) rather than exp(i*m*phi).
However, What's really bugging me is what they did after picking phi=0 and using the delta in (8).
I'm really not sure what went there. It seems as if they used some sort of orthogonality expression, I'm assuming that of spherical harmonics. If they did do so, I can't see what manipulations they did to get 2*pi*delta_m0.
It hints that m'=0 but there is no m' here. Also, assuming there was, they picked it to be 0 because of the azimuthal symmetry?
Moreover, if they did use the orthogonality expression of spherical harmonics, why is there no delta_ll'?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MMS said:
First off, I believe they messed up a little substituting Y_lm (not Y*_lm) as the exponent is exp(-i*m*phi) rather than exp(i*m*phi).
Yes, you are right. But their mistake won't affect the result.
However, What's really bugging me is what they did after picking phi=0 and using the delta in (8).
...I can't see what manipulations they did to get 2*pi*delta_m0.
It hints that m'=0 but there is no m' here. Also, assuming there was, they picked it to be 0 because of the azimuthal symmetry?

Note that they picked ##\phi = 0##. You should be able to use the azimuthal symmetry to see why you can do this.

Once you let ##\phi = 0## you are left with just the integral ##\int_{0}^{2\pi} e^{-im\phi'} d\phi'##. What is the result of carrying out this integral? Consider the case where ##m = 0## as well as ##m \neq 0##.
 
TSny said:
Note that they picked ##\phi = 0##. You should be able to use the azimuthal symmetry to see why you can do this.

Once you let ##\phi = 0## you are left with just the integral ##\int_{0}^{2\pi} e^{-im\phi'} d\phi'##. What is the result of carrying out this integral? Consider the case where ##m = 0## as well as ##m \neq 0##.

God I hate doing physics late at night.

For m=0 it's instantly 2*pi since it's an integral over 1.
For any m≠0 the integral would be that of sine\cosine from 0 to 2*pi which clearly gives 0.
easier way of writing this would be 2*pi*delta_m0.

Thank you TSny for bringing this to my attention. It was starting to piss me off a little. :P
 
Also, if I may, I want to make sure I understand something in this question or in similar problems so I'd be happy if you could verify the following:

Picking phi=0 here is merely because of the symmetry of the problem that suggests that the final answer won't be dependent of phi.
However, it does not suggest that m=0 necessarily. It simply means that I can pick whichever angle phi I desire to observe the potential of the ring from. For instance, if it were simpler, we could've picked phi=pi or something else.
 
Yes, that's right. For this problem it isn't necessary to choose a value for ##\phi##. The factor ##e^{im\phi}## can be pulled out of the integral since it doesn't depend on ##\phi'##. So, the integral over ##\phi'## will still force ##m## to be zero. Then, with ##m = 0##, ##e^{im\phi} = 1##, independent of ##\phi##.
 
TSny said:
Yes, that's right. For this problem it isn't necessary to choose a value for ##\phi##. The factor ##e^{im\phi}## can be pulled out of the integral since it doesn't depend on ##\phi'##. So, the integral over ##\phi'## will still force ##m## to be zero. Then, with ##m = 0##, ##e^{im\phi} = 1##, independent of ##\phi##.
Got it. Thanks for the help TSny!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K