Electrostatics: Charge distribution and Dirac's delta, lots of questions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the charge distribution of a uniformly charged disk and its representation using Dirac's delta function. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of charge distributions in different geometries, including disks, cylinders, and cubes, and the implications of using delta functions in these contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the charge distribution for a uniformly charged disk and expresses confusion about the professor's explanation regarding the use of Dirac's delta function to represent different charge distributions.
  • It is noted that for a point charge, three delta functions are needed, while for a charged plane and line, one and two delta functions are used, respectively.
  • Another participant suggests that a disk can be viewed as a cylinder with a flattened height, proposing that the expression for a cube could be adapted to derive the expression for a cylinder.
  • One participant questions the validity of the charge distribution at specific points in space, suggesting that it is "ill defined" due to the nature of charge distribution being a property of a non-zero spatial extension.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of defining useful functions, such as the unit step function and the boxcar function, to potentially simplify the representation of charge distributions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the charge distribution concepts, with no consensus reached on the clarity of the professor's explanation or the best method to represent the charge distributions mathematically.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention limitations in their understanding of the integration process and the implications of using delta functions, indicating that there may be unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the nature of charge distributions.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286
The problem was to give the charge distribution of a uniformly charged disk of radius R centered at the origin and perpendicular to the z-axis.
The professor explained us how to do so (though many parts were unclear to me and I couldn't copy everything that was on the blackboard because we were too much students and I couldn't see the bottom part of the blackboard).
For a punctual charge, the general form of the charge distribution is [tex]\rho (\vec x) = q \delta (x) \delta (y) \delta (z)[/tex].
For a charged plane: [tex]\rho (\vec x) = q \delta (z)[/tex] and for a charged line: [tex]\rho (x,y,z)=q \delta (x) \delta (y)[/tex].

However for a finite (in extension) plane perpendicular to the z-axis, [tex]\rho (\vec x) = f(x,y)\delta (z)[/tex]. The professor told us that the Dirac's delta "reduces" the dimension (though I don't understand why/how. If you have any comment on his, this would be nice). That's why for a point-like charge we need 3 of these deltas, 1 for a plane and 2 for a line.
The purpose of the function f in the above example is to make the final value coincide with what it should be; that's what I understood.
Using cylindrical coordinates [tex](\rho, z, \phi)[/tex], for the uniformly charged disk of radius R we have that [tex]\rho (\vec x)=\delta (z) \theta (\rho -R) f(\rho)[/tex] where [tex]\theta (\rho - R) = 1[/tex] for [tex]\rho \leq R[/tex] and 0 for [tex]\rho \geq R[/tex]. Thus the theta function is a constraint that delimit the disk of radius R.
Then I don't really know what the professor has done, some integration I believe and he reached a final result I couldn't copy.
In spherical coordinates [tex](r, \theta, \phi )[/tex] and for the same problem, he reached that [tex]\rho (\vec x) =\frac{Q}{\pi R^2 r} \delta (\theta - \frac{\pi}{2}) \hat \theta (r-R)[/tex] which looks different from the result he reached in cylindrical coordinates but it must be the same.
If I understand well the final result, it has no sense to ask for the charge distribution in a particular point in [tex]\mathbb{R}^3[/tex]. However it makes sense to ask for the charge distribution in any surface element; though I don't know how to proceed. I think I should do an integration or so, but I'm not sure and an example would be welcome.
So the final answer to the question is a function that is ill defined because for example in the origin it is not defined nor at the boundaries although there are charges there.
And if I'm not wrong, if I do integrate the final answer over an area (or volume?!) A, then I should get [tex]\sigma _0 A[/tex] ? Namely the amount of charges enclosed into this small area? Is this right?
Why is the function "ill defined" as I call it? Is it because we DO NOT assume charges like points but like a property of a non zero space extension?

If I have the problem "What is the charge distribution of a uniformly charged cube?", I'd rather answer [tex]\rho _0[/tex] for [tex]-a \leq x \leq a[/tex], [tex]-a \leq y \leq a[/tex], [tex]-a \leq y \leq a[/tex]. 0 everywhere else.
My answer wouldn't be ill defined and I could give you the charge distribution in any particular point in space, unlike the method used in more complicated problems.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A disk is a cylinder whose height has been "flattened". So, if you can come up with the expression for a cube, then you can probably come up with the expression for a cylinder. Then, simply take the part of the expression of the cylinder that sets the height, and replace it with the delta function.
 
DaleSpam said:
A disk is a cylinder whose height has been "flattened". So, if you can come up with the expression for a cube, then you can probably come up with the expression for a cylinder. Then, simply take the part of the expression of the cylinder that sets the height, and replace it with the delta function.
Thanks for this insight.
I use cylindrical coordinates (I can't remember the variables so I take [tex](\rho , \theta , z)[/tex] ).
[tex]0\leq \rho \leq a[/tex] , [tex]0 \leq \theta \leq 2 \pi[/tex] , [tex]0\leq z \leq b[/tex] for a cylinder. I replace z by [tex]\delta (z-z_0)[/tex] and I get a disk perpendicular to the z-axis which crosses it at [tex]z=z_0[/tex] and with radius [tex]a[/tex].
Is this good? How would you personally write it? I feel my description of the cylinder is kind of "the ugly way".
 
Well, your description is fine, but if you want to make it prettier then you can define a couple of useful functions.

1) The unit step function:
[tex]u(x)=\int_{-\infty}^x{\delta(X)dX}[/tex]

2) The boxcar function:
[tex]B_{a,b}(x)=u(x-a)-u(x-b)[/tex]

Then your charge distribution becomes
[tex]\frac{Q}{A}B_{0,a}(\rho) B_{0,2\pi}(\theta)\delta(z-z_0)[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
963
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
503
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K