I Help with FLP argument of non-uniformly distributed surface charges

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the argument in FLP vol II regarding non-uniform surface charge distributions on spheres and cylinders. It claims that a sphere with a surface charge density proportional to the cosine of the polar angle can be modeled as two solid spheres with equal but opposite uniform volume densities, separated by a small gap. A similar argument applies to cylindrical charge distributions, where the surface density is proportional to the cosine of the azimuth angle. The mathematical proof involves calculating surface charges and using multipole expansion, specifically the dipole approximation, and may require spherical harmonics for clarity. The textbook's omission of a detailed proof highlights the complexity of this concept.
euphoricrhino
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Hello,
I'm reading FLP vol II, and I would appreciate some help to understand the argument supporting Figure 6-6.
Basically they claim if a sphere has non-uniform charge distribution whose surface density is proportional to the cosine of polar angle, then this surface charge distribution is equivalent to two solid spheres with equal-but-opposite uniform volume density, separated by a small gap.

Intuitively this is reasonable, but I can't prove this rigorously.

Similarly, in section 14-4, similar argument was applied to cylindrical non-uniform surface charge distributions (whose surface density is proportional to the cosine of azimuth angle, the claim is it's equivalent to two equal-but-opposite solid uniform volume-charged cylinders separated by a small gap).

Any help would be greatly appreciated
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just calculate the surface charge of the two spheres and expand wrt. the distance of their centers. That's equivalent to the multipole expansion. The linear order of the expansion is equivalent to the dipole approximation. It's of course also very illuminating to directly treat the boundary-value problem using spherical harmonics.
 
Thanks for the explanation. So it is a non trivial mathematical consequence which was not explained in the textbook. Usually FLP will either say just trust the claim because the proof is non trivial and beside the point, or give a semi proof. I guess it's not the case here
 
Thread 'Inducing EMF Through a Coil: Understanding Flux'
Thank you for reading my post. I can understand why a change in magnetic flux through a conducting surface would induce an emf, but how does this work when inducing an emf through a coil? How does the flux through the empty space between the wires have an effect on the electrons in the wire itself? In the image below is a coil with a magnetic field going through the space between the wires but not necessarily through the wires themselves. Thank you.
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Back
Top