Find the net outward flux through the surface and the charge density

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the net outward flux through a surface and determining the charge density associated with the electric displacement field, ##\mathbf D##. Participants clarify that the ##\theta## component of ##\mathbf D## has a coefficient of 10, not 20, and emphasize the importance of correctly evaluating the divergence, particularly in relation to the limits of integration. The divergence of ##\mathbf D## is noted to be undefined at the origin due to a singularity, which impacts the overall flux calculation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric displacement field, ##\mathbf D##
  • Knowledge of divergence and its application in electromagnetism
  • Familiarity with spherical coordinates and integration limits
  • Basic calculus, particularly partial derivatives and integration techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of singularities in electric fields
  • Learn about the divergence theorem in electromagnetism
  • Explore the concept of charge density in relation to electric fields
  • Investigate the mathematical treatment of spherical coordinates in integrals
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics and engineering, particularly those focusing on electromagnetism and vector calculus.

vboyn12
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Find the net outward flux through the surface and the charge density. (Help please)
Relevant Equations
Relevant equations in a photo below. I try to solve it but the result is 0 which makes me confused
1.jpg
2.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
4.jpg
 
When taking the divergence, note that the ##\theta## component of ##\mathbf D## has a numerical coefficient of 10, not 20.

After you find the charge density, you might be able to see whether or not a zero answer for the flux through the spherical surface makes sense.

What do you get for part (b)?
 
Sorry. I now see where the factor of 20 comes from in evaluating the ##\theta## component of the divergence. Your work looks OK to me.
 
TSny said:
When taking the divergence, note that the ##\theta## component of ##\mathbf D## has a numerical coefficient of 10, not 20.

After you find the charge density, you might be able to see whether or not a zero answer for the flux through the spherical surface makes sense.

What do you get for part (b)?
I think it must be 20 because when taking partial derivative of D(theta component)*sin(theta) respect to theta we can obtain derivative of sin(theta)^2=2sin(theta)cos(theta). This is the first time I post thread so excuse me about the math formulas
 
TSny said:
Sorry. I now see where the factor of 20 comes from in evaluating the ##\theta## component of the divergence. Your work looks OK to me

TSny said:
Sorry. I now see where the factor of 20 comes from in evaluating the ##\theta## component of the divergence. Your work looks OK to me.
thank you. Can you give me some hints to do part (b), please?
 
vboyn12 said:
I think it must be 20 because when taking partial derivative of D(theta component)*sin(theta) respect to theta we can obtain derivative of sin(theta)^2=2sin(theta)cos(theta). This is the first time I post thread so excuse me about the math formulas
Yes, you are right. Your work looks correct.
 
vboyn12 said:
thank you. Can you give me some hints to do part (b), please?
All you need is a minor modification of your work for part (a). Would any of the limits of integration change?
 
TSny said:
All you need is a minor modification of your work for part (a). Would any of the limits of integration change?
theta from 0 to pi/2, is it correct?
 
  • #10
vboyn12 said:
theta from 0 to pi/2, is it correct?
Yes. Do you know if the hemisphere is meant to include a flat base?
 
  • #11
TSny said:
Yes. Do you know if the hemisphere is meant to include a flat base?
So we have to take a double integral of the flat base with limits r from 0 to 1 and phi from 0 to 2pi, i guest
 
  • #12
vboyn12 said:
So we have to take a double integral of the flat base with limits r from 0 to 1 and phi from 0 to 2pi, i guest
Yes. However, there could be a difficulty here due to the fact that the field blows up as ##1/r^3## for ##r## going to zero. So, maybe they don't want you to include the base. I don't know.

This singularity of the field also means that the divergence of ##\mathbf D## is not actually defined at ##r = 0##. Your result ##\nabla \cdot \mathbf D = 0## is valid for all points except at the origin.
 
  • #13
TSny said:
Yes. However, there could be a difficulty here due to the fact that the field blows up as ##1/r^3## for ##r## going to zero. So, maybe they don't want you to include the base. I don't know.

This singularity of the field also means that the divergence of ##\mathbf D## is not actually defined at ##r = 0##. Your result ##\nabla \cdot \mathbf D = 0## is valid for all points except at the origin.
thank you a lot.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TSny
  • #14
vboyn12 said:
thank you a lot.
Can you take some time to have a look at another topic of mine?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
900
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
793
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K