Equivalence of Integral and Differential Forms of Gauss's Law?

AI Thread Summary
A sphere with charge density ρ=k·r yields an electric field E=k·r²/4ε inside the sphere, but the divergence calculation shows ∇·E=k·r/2ε, which is half of the expected value from the differential form of Gauss's Law. The electrostatic potential is derived from the charge distribution, leading to φ(r)=-k/12·r³, and the electric field is confirmed as E=k/4·r²·e_r. The divergence of E is recalculated correctly, confirming that it equals the charge density ρ, consistent with Maxwell's equations. The confusion arose from the differences in applying differential operators in curvilinear versus Cartesian coordinates.
BucketOfFish
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
A sphere has charge density \rho=k\cdot r. Using the integral form of Gauss's Law, one easily finds that the electric field is E=\frac{k\cdot r^2}{4\epsilon} anywhere inside the sphere. However, \nabla\cdot E=\frac{k\cdot r}{2\epsilon}, which is half of what should be expected from the differential form of Gauss's Law, since \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}=\frac{k\cdot r}{\epsilon}. Why is this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Heaviside-Lorentz units, the equation for the electrostatic potential reads

\Delta \phi(\vec{x})=-\rho(\vec{x}).

In spherical coordinates, for a radially symmetric charge distribution, this equation simplifies to the ode,

\frac{1}{r} \mathrm{d}_r^2 (r \phi)=:\frac{1}{r} (r \phi)''=-\rho(r).

Here, r=|\vec{x}|. In your case we have

(r \phi)''=-k r^2.

This you can integrate up successively:

(r \phi)'=-\frac{k}{3} r^3+C_1, \quad r \phi=-\frac{k}{12} r^4 + C_1 r+C_2

or, finally,

\phi(r)=-\frac{k}{12} r^3 + C_1 + \frac{C_2}{r}.

The integration constants, C_1 and C_2, are determined by appropriate boundary conditions, where C_1 is physically irrelevant since the electric field is the observable quantity, which is given by the gradient of the potential. So I set C_1=0 Further, since the charge distribution is continuous at the origin, we must have C_2=0. So finally we get

\phi(r)=-\frac{k}{12} r^3, \quad \vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla} \phi = \frac{k}{4} r^2 \vec{e}_r = \frac{k}{4} r \vec{x}.

To check this result, we take the divergence, which for our case of \vec{E}=E_r(r) \vec{e}_r simplifies to

\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\frac{1}{r^2} (r^2 E_r)'=\frac{1}{r^2} \left (\frac{k r^4}{4} \right )'=k r=\rho

as it should be since Maxwell's equations for the electrostatic case read

\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}=0, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\rho.

I guess, your confusion comes from forgetting that the differential operators look different in curvilinear coordinates compared to the expressions in cartesian ones.

Of course, you can calculate the divergence also in Cartesian coordinates. Although this is a bit more inconvenient in your case of spherical symmetry, you must get the same result. Indeed using the Cartesian form

\vec{E}=\frac{k}{4} \sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2} \vec{x}

you get again

\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\partial_x E_x+\partial_y E_y+\partial_z E_z=\frac{k}{4} \left (\frac{2 x^2+y^2+z^2}{r}+\frac{x^2+2y^2+z^2}{r}+\frac{x^2+y^2+2 z^2}{r} \right) =\frac{k}{4} \frac{4(x^2+y^2+z^2)}{r}=k r.
 
Thank you. I did take the divergence incorrectly.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top