Solve the Electrostatic Paradox: Find Finite Value of E

In summary, the conversation discusses the attempt to calculate the electric field produced by a sphere of uniform charge using a formula and the use of different coordinate systems. After encountering some difficulties, the topic shifts to understanding why the one-dimensional case of a line charge on the x-axis from -R to R results in an infinite E-field. It is concluded that this is a mathematical artifact and that solving in cartesian coordinates does not provide any additional insight. The conversation also briefly mentions a fun math fact about the convergence of an integral.
  • #1
FulhamFan3
134
0
I tried to do a post here but it didn't take so I'm going to put something much shorter that asks the same thing.

I tried to calculate the electric field produced by a sphere of uniform charge using this formula:

[tex]

E(r)=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \iiint\rho(r') \frac{r-r'}{|r-r'|^3} d^3r'
[/tex]

I know I could could use gauss's law but I wanted to do it directly just to see. I tried to do it in cartesian coordinates. Well as you probably know the math gets super tedious for this problem. So what I did is I tried to simplify the problem in lower dimensions. I thought about doing a circle of uniform charge but instead I went for the one-dimensional case of a line charge on the x-axis from -R to R. I came up with this formula to solve it.

[tex]

E(x)=\frac{\lambda}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \int_{-R}^{R} \frac{x-x'}{|x-x'|^3} dx'
[/tex]

After I solved this problem I found something unusual. As I approached R from the x>R side the value of E became infinity. When I know for a uniform sphere it becomes a finite value. Does this make sense to anybody?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That's quite normal, by taking a plane geometry, you introduce a much large charge on the scene. The total charge will be infinite.
 
  • #3
FulhamFan3 said:
I tried to do a post here but it didn't take so I'm going to put something much shorter that asks the same thing.

I tried to calculate the electric field produced by a sphere of uniform charge using this formula:

[tex]

E(r)=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \iiint\rho(r') \frac{r-r'}{|r-r'|^3} d^3r'
[/tex]

I know I could could use gauss's law but I wanted to do it directly just to see. I tried to do it in cartesian coordinates. Well as you probably know the math gets super tedious for this problem. So what I did is I tried to simplify the problem in lower dimensions. I thought about doing a circle of uniform charge but instead I went for the one-dimensional case of a line charge on the x-axis from -R to R. I came up with this formula to solve it.

[tex]

E(x)=\frac{\lambda}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \int_{-R}^{R} \frac{x-x'}{|x-x'|^3} dx'
[/tex]

After I solved this problem I found something unusual. As I approached R from the x>R side the value of E became infinity. When I know for a uniform sphere it becomes a finite value. Does this make sense to anybody?

I don't get it.

If all you wanted to do is prove to yourself that you could get the identical answer using Gauss's Law and Coulomb's Law, then why are you using cartesian coordinates and not spherical coordinates for the Coulomb's law method? What do cartesian coordinates accomplish that spherical coordinates do not? Just more pain and suffering? Then why not torture yourself even more and shift the origin to somewhere else other than the high symmetry location of the problem?

:confused:

Zz.
 
  • #4
ZZ has a point. It's one thing to work in generalities, it's another to make the problem much more painful with no gain in generality.
 
  • #5
If I did it in polar coordinates then the [tex]\abs(r-r')[/tex] term becomes [tex]\sqrt(r^2+r'^2-2rr'cos(\theta-\theta'))[/tex]. The limits become constants instead of functions but I wouldn't really say this is easier to integrate than [tex]\sqrt((x-x')^2+(y-y')^2+(z-z')^2)[/tex].

Regardless, the point wasn't really to integrate the first problem but more to understand why the one dimensional case goes to infinity. I have a mild obsession with being able to solve a problem in any coordinate system and I wasn't really asking how to solve it.

Say you had a point charge at (R,0,0). If you approach that charge from the right side you get an infinite E-field due to the inverse-square relation. However say you add charge until you get a sphere of radius R. The potential is then finite at (R,0,0). Why does the addition of positive charge make something infinite finite
 
  • #6
lalbatros said:
That's quite normal, by taking a plane geometry, you introduce a much large charge on the scene. The total charge will be infinite.

The total charge isn't infinite. I'm integrating from R to -R with a charge/length of [tex]\lambda[/tex]. So the total charge is [tex]2R\lambda[/tex].
 
  • #7
FulhamFan3 said:
Regardless, the point wasn't really to integrate the first problem but more to understand why the one dimensional case goes to infinity. I have a mild obsession with being able to solve a problem in any coordinate system and I wasn't really asking how to solve it.

Say you had a point charge at (R,0,0). If you approach that charge from the right side you get an infinite E-field due to the inverse-square relation. However say you add charge until you get a sphere of radius R. The potential is then finite at (R,0,0). Why does the addition of positive charge make something infinite finite

You have simple encountered a mathematical artifact.

When you have a volume of charge, as r -> 0, the volume enclosed also goes to zero and you do not get into trouble.

But when we make an assumption of a "point charge" sitting at r=0, we no longer have the luxury of saying that the "enclosed volume" is zero and so, the value of the charge enclosed is also zero. This is because we have made an mathematical construction of something have no size having some charge sitting at r=0.

I still do not see solving in cartesian coordinates would give you any better insight into this than spherical coordinates.

Zz.
 
  • #8
Today's Fun Math Fact

It turns out that if you have an n dimensional vector [tex]\mathbf{x}[/tex]

Then the integral

[tex]\int_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n} \frac{1}{(1+|\mathbf{x}|)^s} d\mathbf{x}[/tex]

Is convergent if and only if s>n

And since [tex]\frac{1}{(1+|\mathbf{x}|)^s}<\frac{1}{(|\mathbf{x}|)^s}[/tex], this has implications for the "convergence" of [tex]\frac{1}{(|\mathbf{x}|)^s}[/tex].

I hope I remembered that correctly. In fact, I'm going to fish out my notes on this and write up a proof, because I think this is a useful theorem to know.
 
  • #9
ZapperZ said:
I still do not see solving in cartesian coordinates would give you any better insight into this than spherical coordinates.

Zz.

I wasn't doing it for any insight. I was just doing it to do it. I know this is a science board and everything should have some sort of purpose but I did it for the pure absurdity of it. It's like saying why bike when you can drive there. Maybe I felt like riding a bike.

thanks mathfreak.
 

1. What is the electrostatic paradox?

The electrostatic paradox is a theoretical problem that arises when attempting to calculate the electric field at the surface of a charged conductor. According to the classical equations of electrodynamics, the electric field becomes infinite at the surface of a charged conductor, which is physically impossible.

2. Why is it important to solve the electrostatic paradox?

Solving the electrostatic paradox is important because it allows us to accurately calculate and understand the behavior of electric fields at the surface of charged conductors. It also helps us to better understand the fundamental principles of electrodynamics.

3. What are some proposed solutions to the electrostatic paradox?

There have been several proposed solutions to the electrostatic paradox, including the introduction of a finite size for the electron, the concept of image charges, and the application of quantum mechanics to the problem.

4. How can we find the finite value of E in the electrostatic paradox?

One approach to finding the finite value of E in the electrostatic paradox is through the use of quantum electrodynamics, which combines the principles of quantum mechanics and electrodynamics. Another approach is to consider the effects of the finite size of the electron on the electric field at the surface of a charged conductor.

5. What are the implications of solving the electrostatic paradox?

Solving the electrostatic paradox would not only provide a solution to a long-standing theoretical problem, but it could also have practical implications in fields such as nanotechnology and electronics. It could also lead to a better understanding of the fundamental nature of electric charges and fields.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
419
Replies
3
Views
726
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
746
Replies
2
Views
634
Replies
3
Views
925
Replies
0
Views
667
Replies
2
Views
909
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top