How to Correctly Express Electric Charge Density for a Point Charge?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on expressing the electric charge density ρ(r) for a point charge q at position r'. The initial proposal of ρ(r) = (q / (4πR^2))δ(r - r') is critiqued for implying incorrect units of charge per unit volume. The correct form involves using the three-dimensional delta function, represented as δ^(3)(r - r'), which ensures that the volume integral over any region containing the point charge yields the total charge q. The conversation also clarifies that n-dimensional delta functions have dimensions of (length)^-n, reinforcing the importance of dimensional consistency in physical equations. Understanding these concepts resolves confusion about the units involved in charge density.
Yeldar
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
(src: Intro to Electrodynamics, Griffith, Problem 1.46a)
Q: Write an expression for the electric charge density \rho (r) of a point charge q at r^'. Make sure that the volume integral of \rho equals q.

Now, Closest I can seem to come up with is:


\rho(r)=\frac{q}{4*Pi*R^2}\delta(r-r^')

But, the problem I see with this, is that while yes, integrating this over any volume V that enclosed the point charge will return q, but that q would have to have units of charge/unit_volume which just dosent make sense. Or am I missing something?

Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that delta function should be 3D: \delta^{(3)}(\vec{r}-\vec{r}'). Note that the n-D delta function has dimensions of (length)-n.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, sorry missed that. Have the \delta^3 on my paper, just forgot to type it in.

I don't understand how n-D delta functions have a dimension of (length)-n, could you explain that perhaps?
 
Sure, let's look at the 1D case. Consider the following integral:

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\delta(x)dx=1

The right side of that is 1. Not 1 meter or 1 Joule, just plain old 1. So if the units of dx are meters, then what must the units of the delta function be? Inverse meters.

Similar results hold for higher dimensional cases.
 
Okay, that makes sense.

Thanks for your help, this was driving me crazy, I couldn't figure out why units were not making sense.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top