Electric potential reference points confusion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the use of volume references when calculating electric potential for a solid sphere. The volumes V1 and V2 are defined as V1 for the volume inside the sphere and V2 for the volume at the sphere's surface, R. The first integral evaluates potential from infinity to the surface, while the second integral calculates potential from the surface to a point r within the sphere. The distinction is made clear that the second integral allows for any point inside the sphere, rather than just the center. This clarification resolves the initial confusion about the integration limits and the volumes involved.
Shinobii
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Hi gang, I am hoping you can clear something up for me. When evaluating the potential of a solid sphere, I find myself confused about the volumes used such that,

\phi = Q \int_{\infty}^R \frac{1}{V_1} r^2 \sin(\theta) \, dr \, d\theta \, d\phi + Q \int_R^r \frac{1}{V_2} r^2 \sin(\theta) \, dr \, d\theta \, d\phi.

where V_1 = 4 \pi r^3/3 and V_2 = 4 \pi R^3/3.

Why is V_1 the volume inside and V_2 the volume at r = R?

The first volume I understand since we are coming from infinity to the surface of the sphere. But when evaluating the second integral with the second volume, why is it only at r=R.

My current logic is that the volume depends on the initial point of integration (which would be consistent with this problem), but surely this cannot be always true?

I hope someone can shed some light on this matter.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shinobii said:
Hi gang, I am hoping you can clear something up for me. When evaluating the potential of a solid sphere, I find myself confused about the volumes used such that,

\phi = Q \int_{\infty}^R \frac{1}{V_1} r^2 \sin(\theta) \, dr \, d\theta \, d\phi + Q \int_R^r \frac{1}{V_2} r^2 \sin(\theta) \, dr \, d\theta \, d\phi.

where V_1 = 4 \pi r^3/3 and V_2 = 4 \pi R^3/3.

Why is V_1 the volume inside and V_2 the volume at r = R?

The first volume I understand since we are coming from infinity to the surface of the sphere. But when evaluating the second integral with the second volume, why is it only at r=R.

My current logic is that the volume depends on the initial point of integration (which would be consistent with this problem), but surely this cannot be always true?

I hope someone can shed some light on this matter.

I don't think I've seen whatever formula you're using, but I think you're attempting to find the potential inside the sphere. You start from zero since that's you're reference point and integrate up to the surface of the sphere. Then you add another integral since the term you're integrating is different inside the sphere. This runs from the surface to whatever point you want to find the potential at, r.

Is your question why you go to r and not 0? That's because that would give you the potential at the center. r gives you the ability to plug in any distance from the center inside the sphere and find the potential.
 
Thanks

Yes, you are right about the potential inside a solid sphere; sorry for not being more clear. You answered my question perfectly! I suppose that is also the reason that V_1 has r in the denominator, since we are coming in from infinity.

Thanks a bunch.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top