Electrostatics ofa shell question

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving the electrostatic potential of a spherical shell defined by the equation V(r=R)=V_0cosθ. For part (a), the potential inside (r ≤ R) is V(r, θ) = (V_0 r / R) cosθ, and outside (r > R) is V(r, θ) = (V_0 R² / r²) cosθ. In part (b), the presence of a point charge at the center modifies the potential, leading to V(r, θ) = (V_0 / R) cosθ + (q / 4πε₀)(1/r - 1/R). The uniqueness theorem confirms that the potential outside the shell remains unchanged as long as the boundary conditions are maintained.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Laplace's equation and Poisson's equation
  • Familiarity with spherical coordinates and separation of variables
  • Knowledge of electrostatics, particularly the uniqueness theorem
  • Basic concepts of electric potential and charge distributions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the uniqueness theorem in electrostatics
  • Learn about the superposition principle in electric potential
  • Explore the implications of boundary conditions on electrostatic potentials
  • Investigate the effects of external charges on the potential of a spherical shell
USEFUL FOR

Students of electromagnetism, physicists, and engineers working with electrostatic systems, particularly those dealing with spherical geometries and boundary value problems.

E92M3
Messages
64
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A spherical shell with potential:
V(r=R)=V_0cos\theta
(a) Please solve the potential inside and outside the shell.
(b) if there is a point charge at the center and the potential of the shell keeps the same, solve the potential inside and outside.

Homework Equations


Laplace equation:
\nabla^2V=0

The Attempt at a Solution


Part a) I can do. Using the separation of variables in spherical coordinates I found that:
\frac{V_0 r}{R} cos\theta ; r\leq R
and
\frac{V_0 R^2}{r^2} cos\theta ; r\seq R

Part b) I'm having some trouble.
I think we should apply the uniqueness theorem since the potential is specified on the boundary (the sphere) but not sure how. Does that mean that the potential is the same as before inside the sphere? I was told that this is not the case by upperclassman who can't tell me why. They only know the answer is:
V(r,\theta)=\frac{V_0}{R} cos \theta +\frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R})
I think that this is indeed the right answer since it satisfy the boundary condition, but I want to know why. It looks like that the first term accounts for the charge distribution on the sphere, but if that is the case shouldn't the second term be the point charge in ther center namely:
\frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\frac{1}{r}
instead?
THe outside is even more tricky. Can I even apply the uniqueness theorem? The boundary where the potential is defined doesn't enclose the area outside the sphere. What can I do?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
E92M3 said:
I think we should apply the uniqueness theorem since the potential is specified on the boundary (the sphere) but not sure how. Does that mean that the potential is the same as before inside the sphere? I was told that this is not the case by upperclassman who can't tell me why.
No, the potential will be the same outside the sphere; it still satisfies Laplace's equation, and has the same values at its boundaries, r=R,\infty , as before.

However, inside the sphere there is now a point charge and so the potential in that region doesn't satisfy Laplace's equation, but rather Poisson's equation corresponding to a point charge at the origin:

\nabla^2 V_{in}=-q\frac{\delta^3(\textbf{r})}{\epsilon_0}

They only know the answer is:
V(r,\theta)=\frac{V_0}{R} cos \theta +\frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R})
I think that this is indeed the right answer since it satisfy the boundary condition, but I want to know why. It looks like that the first term accounts for the charge distribution on the sphere, but if that is the case shouldn't the second term be the point charge in ther center namely:
\frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\frac{1}{r}
instead?
You can use the superposition principle here and say that the potential is a sum of two terms; one, V_1, that satisfies Laplace's equation, is finite at the origin, and takes on the value V_0\cos\theta at r=R; and a second, V_2, which satisfies Poisson's equation corresponding to a point charge at the origin, and takes on the value of zero at r=R (so that the total potential takes on the correct value there). That way, you have

\nabla^2 V_{in}=\nabla^2 V_1+\nabla^2 V_2=-q\frac{\delta^3(\textbf{r})}{\epsilon_0}\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\; V(r=R)=V_0\cos\theta

as required.

The uniqueness theorem tells you that V_1 is exactly the same as the inside potential from part (a), while V_2 must be the potential due to a point charge at the origin, with reference point set at r=R rather than infinity (so that V_2(r=R)=0 as required).
 
Thanks I think I got it now. Just to make sure, so outside the sphere is the same as before because of the uniqueness theorem? I thought it only applies to the potential inside a volume bounded the a boundary where the boundary conditions are defined (inside the sphere). Here, are we treating infinity as the boundary too? If so then can I argue that no matter what I put inside the sphere won't affect the potential outside as long as the BC remain unchanged? But if I put some charge outside the sphere the external potential will be changed. Am I correct?
 
E92M3 said:
Thanks I think I got it now. Just to make sure, so outside the sphere is the same as before because of the uniqueness theorem? I thought it only applies to the potential inside a volume bounded the a boundary where the boundary conditions are defined (inside the sphere). Here, are we treating infinity as the boundary too? If so then can I argue that no matter what I put inside the sphere won't affect the potential outside as long as the BC remain unchanged? But if I put some charge outside the sphere the external potential will be changed. Am I correct?

Yes, that's correct. :approve: Of course, if you allowed the potential at r=R to change as you added charge inside the shell (as it normally would for most shell materials), then one of the boundary conditions would change and hence so would the potential outside.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
769
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K