Electrostatics & Quadric Surfaces

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bolbteppa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrostatics Surfaces
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the challenges of solving electrostatics problems involving electric fields and potentials due to charge distributions on quadric surfaces. The participant expresses frustration with traditional geometric methods and seeks a more mathematical approach, specifically through the use of Laplace and Poisson equations. It is concluded that while these equations are fundamental in electrostatics, they do not directly lead to all formulas found in elementary physics texts like Halliday-Resnick. Instead, a deeper understanding of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation may provide a more comprehensive framework for deriving these relationships.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Laplace and Poisson equations in electrostatics
  • Familiarity with electric fields and potentials
  • Knowledge of multiple integrals and Jacobian transformations
  • Basic concepts of tensors and moment of inertia
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric fields from Laplace and Poisson equations
  • Explore Maxwell's equations and their applications in electrostatics
  • Learn about the use of differential forms in electromagnetism
  • Investigate advanced mathematical techniques for solving electrostatic problems
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism, as well as educators and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of electrostatics through mathematical frameworks rather than geometric methods.

bolbteppa
Messages
300
Reaction score
41
Hey guys, I'm in some serious trouble - I don't know how to solve a lot of problems in electrostatics. The main reason is that once I seen that you had to be able to find electric fields & electric potentials due to charge distributions on quadric surfaces I panicked & gave up - I was still having trouble with finding the center of mass & moment of inertia of every quadric surface, every geometry from every location of the surface (just to make it hard on myself!) but I just felt there had to be a better way of dealing with these things than geometric considerations, ever prone to mistakes, but didn't know what to do, so I went off & learned a ton of maths...

I had a similar problem with multiple integrals, once I seen the derivation of the area element in polar coordinates or volume elements etc... I just instinctively rejected the idea of polar integration, & would have seriously suffered had I not come to terms with mindless jacobian transformations & the curvilinear differential as a means to derive those things on the spot.

During the year I finally learned how to use the inertia tensor & found that I could deal with every moment of inertia problem trivially compared to what I thought I'd have to do, exactly analogous to the way you can find area & volume elements for any change of variables with a jacobian & no case-specific geometric contortions, just plugging in formulas & being a bit careful about limits of integration.

I'm wondering whether Laplace & Poisson equations can be used to derive all those formulas in an elementary calculus-based physics book? I'm talking Halliday-Resnick level, I would much prefer to be able to derive every formula myself without worrying about geometry too much (beyond setting up boundary conditions in a pde) & then using all those elementary geometric derivations as little exercises as opposed to my main source!

What am I to do? I have a feeling that the derivations of moments of inertia in elementary physics books are done to apparently make it simpler on students who can't deal with tensors & multiple integrals, but for me it only made things immensely harder. I'm hoping Laplace & Poisson's equations will function as the electrostatics version of the inertia tensor, in other words I'm hoping a bit of advanced mathematics will make my life simpler - am I right, is there a source that would go through the common geometries using Laplace & Poisson equations to derive what's in those elementary physics books, or do I really have to go though (by my count) 37 different cases (including intersections of surfaces etc...) using error-prone geometric arguments just to feel I can deal with the electrostatic charge distributions & the electrostatic potential?

Also, could you do all this with ease using differential forms?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bolbteppa said:
Hey guys, I'm in some serious trouble - I don't know how to solve a lot of problems in electrostatics. The main reason is that once I seen that you had to be able to find electric fields & electric potentials due to charge distributions on quadric surfaces I panicked & gave up - I was still having trouble with finding the center of mass & moment of inertia of every quadric surface, every geometry from every location of the surface (just to make it hard on myself!) but I just felt there had to be a better way of dealing with these things than geometric considerations, ever prone to mistakes, but didn't know what to do, so I went off & learned a ton of maths...

I had a similar problem with multiple integrals, once I seen the derivation of the area element in polar coordinates or volume elements etc... I just instinctively rejected the idea of polar integration, & would have seriously suffered had I not come to terms with mindless jacobian transformations & the curvilinear differential as a means to derive those things on the spot.

During the year I finally learned how to use the inertia tensor & found that I could deal with every moment of inertia problem trivially compared to what I thought I'd have to do, exactly analogous to the way you can find area & volume elements for any change of variables with a jacobian & no case-specific geometric contortions, just plugging in formulas & being a bit careful about limits of integration.

I'm wondering whether Laplace & Poisson equations can be used to derive all those formulas in an elementary calculus-based physics book? I'm talking Halliday-Resnick level, I would much prefer to be able to derive every formula myself without worrying about geometry too much (beyond setting up boundary conditions in a pde) & then using all those elementary geometric derivations as little exercises as opposed to my main source!

What am I to do? I have a feeling that the derivations of moments of inertia in elementary physics books are done to apparently make it simpler on students who can't deal with tensors & multiple integrals, but for me it only made things immensely harder. I'm hoping Laplace & Poisson's equations will function as the electrostatics version of the inertia tensor, in other words I'm hoping a bit of advanced mathematics will make my life simpler - am I right, is there a source that would go through the common geometries using Laplace & Poisson equations to derive what's in those elementary physics books, or do I really have to go though (by my count) 37 different cases (including intersections of surfaces etc...) using error-prone geometric arguments just to feel I can deal with the electrostatic charge distributions & the electrostatic potential?

Also, could you do all this with ease using differential forms?

Thanks!

As far as I know Laplace and Poisson's equations are the equations that the electric potential satisfy in electrostatics. You solve either Laplace or Poisson equation to get the potential and then you can get the electric field via the relation ##\vec E =- \vec {\nabla } \Phi##. So the answer to your question whether from those 2 equations you can derive all the formula in Resnick and Halliday is no.
So saying that you're stuck at finding the potential and E field basically means you are stuck at solving Laplace and/or Poisson's equations.
On the other hand I've heard that you can derive all formula from Maxwell's equations+ Lorentz force's equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
932
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K