How the distance from centre decides type of charge motion?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gracy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Motion Type
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the motion of a charge -Q in relation to its distance from the center of a uniformly charged sphere. Participants explore the differences between oscillatory motion and simple harmonic motion (SHM), particularly how the distance from the center influences the type of motion exhibited by the charge. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and interpretations of force laws.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a charge -Q at a large distance from the center will exhibit oscillatory and periodic motion, while a charge released close to the origin will execute SHM.
  • One participant questions what is at the origin that causes this difference in motion and seeks to distinguish between "oscillatory and periodic" motion and SHM.
  • It is suggested that a diffuse, spherically symmetric cloud with uniform positive charge density centered on the origin influences the motion of the charge -Q.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the spherical shell theorem, noting that only the portion of the charge cloud closer to the origin affects the net force on the test charge.
  • There is a clarification that the net attraction experienced by the charge is proportional to its distance from the origin, due to the volume of the charge cloud being proportional to r³ and the force law being inversely proportional to r².
  • Some participants express confusion over the definitions and relationships between the distances and charges involved in the discussion.
  • There is an agreement that the portion of the charge cloud farther from the origin than the test charge produces no net electrical field on the test charge.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of the spherical shell theorem and its implications for the net electrical field. However, there remains some confusion and lack of consensus regarding the definitions and implications of oscillatory motion versus SHM, as well as the specific relationships between the distances and charges discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions of variables and the implications of the spherical shell theorem in this context. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical relationships and assumptions regarding the charge distribution and its effects on motion.

  • #61
gracy said:
Is the answer no then?
Suppose the object approaches the origin with some non-zero speed. What does Newton's first law say again?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
jbriggs444 said:
What does Newton's first law say again?
Yes.It will travel with the same speed.
 
  • #63
And the test charge should be of opposite nature(whether positive or negative) to that of charge enclosed in sphere,right?
 
  • #64
Right. My post 58 objected to your reasoning, not to your conclusion.

Now can you agree that the motion of the test charge in the hypothetical spherical cloud of uniform charge will be simple harmonic motion?

With that agreement can you agree that my guess in post #2 is a physical scenario compatible with the behavior you described in post#1?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #65
gracy said:
And the test charge should be of opposite nature(whether positive or negative) to that of charge enclosed in sphere,right?
Right. You had originally described the test charge as "-Q" so I assumed you wanted it to be negatively charged. I never mentioned a sign on the uniform charge and assumed that you would assume that it was positive.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #66
jbriggs444 said:
Now can you agree that the motion of the test charge in the hypothetical spherical cloud of uniform charge will be simple harmonic motion?
only when r is small,right?
 
  • #67
gracy said:
only when r is small,right?
Yes.

Which explains why one might have simple harmonic motion for charges near the origin and periodic oscillation different from simple harmonic motion for charges further away.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #68
There is still a bit of confusion in my mind.I want to clear that to thoroughly understand this concept so that your hardwork behind this does not go in vain and I have crystal clear understanding.
jbriggs444 said:
Do you agree that if this cloud of charge is spherical then the portion which is farther than r from the origin produces no net electrical field on the test charge? The spherical shell theorem should tell you this.

Do you agree that the field from the portion of the could which is nearer than r from the origin produces an electrical field on the test charge identical to that which would be produced if its entire charge were concentrated at the origin? The spherical shell theorem should also tell you this.
these two are part of spherical shell theorem which kind of makes symmetrical situation of sphere,I want to ask is this applicable for both cases whether r is small or big
r is distance of test charge from the center of charged sphere i.e origin?
 
  • #69
I think the answer to my question in previous post is no.Because if spherical shell theorem were to be applicable in both cases then for bigger /larger r also the motion will be simple harmonic motion which is not the fact as depicted in my OP.Right?
 
  • #70
gracy said:
these two are part of spherical shell theorem which kind of makes symmetrical situation of sphere,I want to ask is this applicable for both cases whether r is small or big
r is distance of test charge from the center of charged sphere i.e origin?

The passage you quoted is in the context of an explanation about how simple harmonic motion is the expected result as long as the test charge stays within the area of uniform charge. So it is within a context where r is always "small".

When r is large compared to the size of the charged cloud, the situation is different.

Edit: In particular, for large r, the amount of charge enclosed by a sphere of radius r no longer scales with r. It is fixed (it cannot be more than the total charge on the cloud).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #71
Sir,please say "yes" to my post #69.
 
  • #72
gracy said:
I think the answer to my question in previous post is no.Because if spherical shell theorem were to be applicable in both cases then for bigger /larger r also the motion will be simple harmonic motion which is not the fact as depicted in my OP.Right?
The spherical shell theorem is a theorem. It always applies as long as its premises hold. They do hold in the case of large r.

In particular:

1. The net force from the portion of the charged cloud outside the shell of radius r is zero.
2. The net force from the portion of the charged cloud inside the shell of radius r is equivalent to the force that would exist if the charge were concentrated at the origin.
 
  • #73
Then why not in this case?
 
  • #74
Oh! I thought I understood the whole thing.
 
  • #75
gracy said:
Then why not in this case?
Re-read post #60 and, in particular, the edit there.

Edit: 70, darnit.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #76
post 60?it's mine.
 
  • #77
gracy said:
post 60?it's mine.
Yeah, yeah, I corrected myself but you were just too quick.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #78
gracy said:
Oh! I thought I understood the whole thing.
I was correct in thinking so!:smile:
 
  • #79
Ok.With all credits to you I now understand why in case of big r it will not be simple hatmonic motion but why it would be periodic anyway?
 
  • #80
gracy said:
Ok.With all credits to you I now understand why in case of big r it will not be simple hatmonic motion but why it would be periodic anyway?
It seems intuitively obvious. But let me see if I can come up with a solid and understandable argument...

We are working in one dimension. The only forces present are along the x axis. So there are no side to side complications to worry about.

We are dealing with a central force that depends only on distance from the origin. That means that we are working in a conservative field. However, let's try a more elementary argument than that. How about time reversal symmetry...

We know we have an attractive force. If the test charge is ever motionless or if it is ever moving toward the origin, it will pass through the origin. Let us hand-wave away the case where the test charge is moving at a speed greater than or equal to escape velocity and never hits the origin.

When the test mass passes through the origin, it will go outward for some distance, turn around and fall back. [Remember that we hand-waved away the possibility of escape]

On its path back to the origin, its acceleration at each r value on the way in will be equal to its acceleration at that r value on the way out. It will have the same inward velocity at each r value on the way in as it had on its way out. It will return to the origin at the same speed it left. The time taken for that trip is purely a function of its speed at the origin. And its speed each time it passes through the origin is identical.

It follows that its trajectory is periodic.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #81
I understood it.Thanks Thanks Thanks.You just made my day I was worried throughout the day for this problem.Now I can be relax.Just because of you.You were so patient throughout this thread coping with my silly questions.Thanks again.All the helpers here on physics forum are doing selfless help which is remarkable.Love physics forum!:smile::smile::smile:
 
  • #82
The thank you's make it all worth while.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #83
Your avatar/profile pic suggests it's your pleasure :wink:
 
  • #84
Who, me? I know nothing. Nothing. The commandant says that there is to be no fraternizing with the prisoners.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #85
jbriggs444 said:
Who, me? I know nothing. Nothing. The commandant says that there is to be no fraternizing with the prisoners.
Oooooooooooooo!THAT'S WHAT YOU KEEP SAYING!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
868
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K