Griffiths Example 3.8: Justifications for Claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Griffiths
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Example 3.8 from Griffiths' Electromagnetism textbook, focusing on claims made regarding the electric potential in specific coordinate systems. Participants are examining the justification for the potential being zero in the equatorial plane and the transition of the potential expression from Cartesian to spherical coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the justification for the potential being zero in the equatorial plane and exploring the reasoning behind the transformation of the potential expression from Cartesian to spherical coordinates. There is also a discussion about the implications of the sphere being uncharged and grounded.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the claims made in the textbook. Some guidance has been offered regarding the assumptions related to the uncharged metal sphere, but no consensus has been reached on the justifications sought.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem is originally defined in Cartesian coordinates, which may affect the understanding of the potential in spherical coordinates. There is an emphasis on the need for justifications for the claims made in the textbook.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] Griffiths Example 3.8

Homework Statement


Please stop reading unless you have Griffiths E and M book.

In Example 3.8, Griffiths makes two claims without justification that I want justification for. First, he says that V=0 in the equatorial plane (I assume this means that x-y plane). Second, he says that [tex]V \to -E_0 r \cos{\theta}[/tex] for [tex]r >>R[/tex]. Where does the cosine come from?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:

Homework Statement


Please stop reading unless you have Griffiths E and M book.

In Example 3.8, Griffiths makes two claims without justification that I want justification for. First, he says that V=0 in the equatorial plane (I assume this means that x-y plane). Second, he says that [tex]V \to -E_0 r \cos{\theta}[/tex] for [tex]r >>R[/tex]. Where does the cosine come from?

The problem is originally defined in cartesian coordinates. Now that we are using the Legendre Polynomials it has to be in spherical coordinates.

Orginally:
[tex]V \to -E_0 z[/tex]
goes to
[tex]V \to -E_0 r \cos{\theta}[/tex]
since
[tex]z = r \cos{\theta}[/tex]
 
And how do you know V=0 all over th equatorial plane?
 
It is an uncharged metal sphere, so we basically assume it was grounded beforehand
 
I see. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
958
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K