Electric Potential of a Spherical Shell

In summary, a conducting spherical shell with inner radius a, outer radius b, and a +Q point charge at the center will have a charge of -Q on the inner surface and 0 on the outer surface. The electric field will be kQ/(r^2) for 0 < r < a, 0 for a < r < b, and 0 for r > b. The electric potential will be 0 for r > b, 0 for a < r < b, and kQ((1/r)-(1/a)) for 0 < r < a. The potential is continuous and constant inside the conductor.
  • #1
asap9993
19
0

Homework Statement


A conducting spherical shell has inner radius a, outer radius b, and has a +Q point charge at the center. A charge of -Q is put on the conductor.

a) What is the charge on the inner and outer surface of the shell?

b) What is the electric field everywhere?

c) What is the electric potential everywhere?


Homework Equations


Gauss's Law
V = -∫E[itex]\bullet[/itex]dl

The Attempt at a Solution


a) From conservation of charge and the fact that it's a conductor, the charge on the inner surface of the shell is -Q and the charge on the outer surface is 0. In addition, there is no charge inside the shell.

b) For 0 < r < a, Gauss's Law gives E = kQ/(r^2)

For a < r < b, E = 0

For r > b, E = 0

c) This is where I'm stuck. E = 0 for r > b, so the potential difference is 0. But the question asks for the actual potential function. Normally, I would use V = kQ/r. But Q = 0 in this case, so V = 0. So that would mean V = 0 for a < r < b Lastly, for 0 < r < a,
V(r) = V(a) - kQ((1/a)-(1/r)) = 0 - kQ((1/a)-(1/r)) = kQ((1/r)-(1/a)).

I believe this is what the answer should be. Please, can anyone tell me if they agree?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
a) From conservation of charge and the fact that it's a conductor, the inside of the shell is -Q and the outside is 0. In addition, there is no charge inside the shell.
First you say there is a charge of -Q inside the shell, then you say there is no charge inside the shell ... which is it?

The question is a tad vaguely worded - it is unclear what is meant by "inside" and "outside" in each case. Taken literally, "inside" would commonly be considered r<a and "outside" would be r>b ... so that would exclude the surface charges. a≤r≤b would be "within the shell itself". It is possible to answer all the sections using that definition ... it's an exercise in Gauss' Law.

You'll have to use the context provided by your lessons to correctly interpret the question.
Whatever you choose, you need to be precise in your answer.

b) For 0 ≤ r ≤ a, Gauss's Law gives E = kQ/(r^2)
... that is only for r<a, at r=a, isn't there an additional surface charge?

Being clear about this should help you with the last part.
Note: what is the relationship between electric potential and electric field?
 
  • #3
Yes,sorry about that. I rephrased the question.
 
  • #4
Gauss's Law gives E = kQ/(r^2)
No it doesn't. Check. Hint: E is a vector.

Also:
What you have written means that at r=a, E=kQ/a^2 (1st relation) and E=0 (2nd relation), at the same time: how can this be?
 
  • #5
Right. E is indeed a vector that points radially outward in this case. I'm focused on its magnitude here. In vector form, there is an r roof vector included.

Ok I see that you are saying that E(r) is discontinuous at r = a. I'm guessing that E must be 0 at r = a since the enclosed net charge is 0, so the first relation should be E(0 < r < a) = kQ((1/r^2) - (1/a^2)). That would make it continuous. However, that contradicts Gauss's Law. That doesn't make sense. Also, why does E have to be continuous anyway? There are several examples in my textbook in which it is not. Are the charges correct?

Lastly, do you agree with my reasoning in the part on finding the potential? Suppose my electric fields are correct, then did I get the correct potentials?
 
  • #6
You have the idea, it is just you are not being careful about the boundaries.
The trick is to be careful about dividing the volume up.

For a gaussian surface that is a sphere centered on the origin of radius ##0<r<a##,
What is the total charge enclosed?
What is the electric field due to that charge?

Again for ##a\leq r < b## ?

Again for ##r\geq b## ?

It may help to think of the surface charge as being infinitesimally inside the surface.

For the potentials, you seem to have chosen your reference potential at r=a ... I'm not really sure I've understood your reasoning: was there a specific reason for this?

Note: there is a relationship between the electric field and the potential.
Why not use it?
 
  • #7
asap9993 said:
For r > b, E = 0

c) This is where I'm stuck. E = 0 for r > b, so the potential difference is 0.

You should state with respect to what is the potential difference zero. But you are right, if the electric field is zero which is the negative gradient of the potential, the potential does not change between infinity and r=b.
asap9993 said:
But the question asks for the actual potential function. Normally, I would use V = kQ/r. But Q = 0 in this case, so V = 0. So that would mean V = 0 for a < r < b
The potential of a point charge Q is kQ/r if the zero of the potential is at infinity.
Yes, the potential is also zero inside the conductor, as the electric field is zero, the potential is constant and the potential is a continuous function. If it is zero just outside the conductive shell, it is zero also inside. For the same reason, the potential is also zero inside the void at r=a.

asap9993 said:
Lastly, for 0 < r < a,
V(r) = V(a) - kQ((1/a)-(1/r)) = 0 - kQ((1/a)-(1/r)) = kQ((1/r)-(1/a)).

I believe this is what the answer should be. Please, can anyone tell me if they agree?

Yes, your result is correct.

ehild
 

1. What is the formula for calculating the electric potential of a spherical shell?

The formula for calculating the electric potential of a spherical shell is V = kQ/R, where V is the electric potential, k is the Coulomb's constant, Q is the charge of the spherical shell, and R is the distance from the center of the shell.

2. How does the electric potential of a spherical shell vary with distance from the center?

The electric potential of a spherical shell decreases as the distance from the center increases. This is because as the distance increases, the electric field becomes weaker and therefore the electric potential decreases.

3. What is the difference between the electric potential of a solid sphere and a hollow sphere?

The electric potential of a solid sphere depends on the distance from the center, while the electric potential of a hollow sphere is constant throughout its interior. This is because the charge is distributed evenly on the surface of a hollow sphere, while it is distributed throughout the volume of a solid sphere.

4. Can the electric potential of a spherical shell be negative?

Yes, the electric potential of a spherical shell can be negative. This occurs when the shell has a net negative charge, causing the electric potential to be negative at certain points in its electric field.

5. How does the electric potential of a spherical shell affect the movement of charges inside it?

The electric potential of a spherical shell does not affect the movement of charges inside it. This is because the electric potential only depends on the distance from the center, not the charge or movement of particles within the shell.

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
531
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
23
Views
257
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
434
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
780
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
251
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top