Electric Potential Particle Charge Problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the equipotential surface for a system of two charged particles: one with charge q located at x=-R and another with charge -2q at the origin. The original poster aims to prove that the zero potential surface is a sphere centered at (-4R/3,0,0) with a radius of 2/3R.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to set up a potential equation based on the distances between the charges and the point of interest. Some participants question the assumptions made, suggesting that the problem should be approached in three dimensions rather than one. Others propose considering cylindrical symmetry and suggest using spherical coordinates to analyze the potential.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different approaches to understand the problem better. Some have offered guidance on utilizing cylindrical symmetry and the method of images to analyze the potential. There is an ongoing dialogue about the correct setup for the potential function and the implications of the assumptions made.

Contextual Notes

There is a discussion about the dimensionality of the problem and the need to consider the potential in three dimensions. Participants are also addressing the need for clarity regarding the potential function and its dependence on the position vector.

Lancelot59
Messages
640
Reaction score
1
I'm given the following problem:

A particle with charge q is located at x=-R and a particle with charge -2q is located at the origin. Prove that the equipotential surface that has zero potential is a sphere centered at (-4R/3,0,0) with radius r=2/3R.

I started by dividing the length between the two particles into two lengths: a and b. a is between the particle of charge q, and region b. b is between region a and the origin.

I then set up my potential equation like so:

[tex]V=k(\frac{q}{-R-b}+\frac{-2q}{-R-a})[/tex]

I also had this equation to work with:
[tex]R=(a+b)[/tex]

I set it equal to zero, and after some simplification I got:
[tex]b=\frac{2}{3}R[/tex][tex]a=\frac{1}{3}R[/tex]

So I solved for b, but I'm not sure what to do now. I've proved that that point on the x-axis has a potential of zero. How do I prove that it is a sphere?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The assumptions you made reduced the problem to a one-dimensional problem, but you're looking to solve the three-dimensional case. You're going to have to start over.

What does the cylindrical symmetry of the problem give you?
 
vela said:
The assumptions you made reduced the problem to a one-dimensional problem, but you're looking to solve the three-dimensional case. You're going to have to start over.

What does the cylindrical symmetry of the problem give you?

I'm not entirely sure. For any given position on the line, the potential only varies with respect to the radius? That would sweep out a cylinder.

EDIT: I think I see it now. I need to draw my radius out to an arbitrary point (x,y,z) and then using that in my potential equation set it equal to zero and solve after converting it to spherical coordinates?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but you can just work in the xy-plane because of the cylindrical symmetry.
 
There's another possible approach. One can use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_image_charges" to solve for the fields (and hence potentials) for charges and conductors.

Given your conclusion you should get the equivalent field (outside the sphere) if you replace the inner charge with a spherical shell (grounded to zero potential).

The method of images says:
1.) Use geometric optics to find the virtual image of a charged point by treating the conductor as a mirror.
2.) Assign the image a charge of opposite sign times the magnification times the original charge.
3.) Remove the conductor and work out the field and potential for the real plus image charges.

I'm suggesting doing this in reverse. A conductor (in electrostatics) by its nature defines an equipotential surface. So one can always replace an equipotential surface with a conductor held at that voltage.

Maybe my suggestion is "driving tacks with a sledgehammer" but it has a certain elegance. I'd wager cash that the person who thought up the problem was thinking in terms of the method of images.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vela said:
Yes, but you can just work in the xy-plane because of the cylindrical symmetry.

I see, I'm not yet sure how I could go about setting it up. I'll try it out and see if I can come up with anything.
 
Lancelot59 said:
I then set up my potential equation like so:

[tex]V=k(\frac{q}{-R-b}+\frac{-2q}{-R-a})[/tex]

The potential function is wrong.
The potential is a scalar function but its argument is the position vector, r.
The potential of a point charge q situated at R is

[tex]V(\vec r)=k \frac{q}{|\vec r-\vec R|}[/tex]

So your potential function is

[tex]V(\vec r)=k \frac{-2q}{|\vec r|}+k\frac{q}{|\vec r+R \vec i|}[/tex]

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
19
Views
3K