How to Determine Scalar Potential Inside and Outside a Charged Sphere?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the scalar potential inside and outside a charged sphere with a constant charge density using Poisson's and Laplace's equations. Participants are exploring the implications of symmetry and the behavior of the potential in spherical coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of Poisson's and Laplace's equations, questioning how to simplify the equations in spherical coordinates. There is uncertainty about the dependence of the potential on the radial distance inside the sphere and the implications of spherical symmetry.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided steps for the potential calculations inside and outside the sphere, while others are seeking clarification on the assumptions made, particularly regarding the constants of integration and the application of boundary conditions. The discussion is ongoing with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential typos in the equations presented, and participants are encouraged to verify their steps and reasoning. The discussion reflects a collaborative effort to understand the problem without reaching a definitive conclusion.

dsta
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Use Poisson's equation and Laplace's equation to determine the scalar potential inside and outside a sphere of constant charge density po. Use Coulomb's law to give the limit at very large r, and an argument from symmetry to give the value of E at r=0.


Homework Equations


del2V = - p/epsilono
del2V = 0

The Attempt at a Solution


Not sure how to start this just using Poisson's/Laplace's equation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is [itex]\nabla^2V[/itex] in spherical coordinates?...Are there any symmetries that allow you to simplify it?
 
Hmm okay. I'm not sure what symmetries you would need to consider to simplify [itex]\nabla^2V[/itex] in spherical coordinates. Because the charge density is constant, V does not depend on r inside the sphere...I'm not sure about anything else.
 
What makes you think [itex]V[/itex] doesn't depend on [itex]r[/itex]?:confused:

Surely you can say that it doesn't depend on either the azimuthal or polar angles though right?...After all, a test charged placed at any given value of [itex]r[/itex], will "see" the same charge distribution at say [itex]\theta=\phi=\pi/4[/itex] as it would at say [itex]\theta=3\pi[/itex], [itex]\phi=\pi/7[/itex] or any other angle wouldn't it? (Draw a picture to convince yourself of this!)...This type of symmetry is called spherical symmetry.
 
Oops sorry, I meant to say that. Okay so using the simplified form of the equation for [itex]\nabla^2V[/itex] in spherical coordinates, and Poisson's equation, I was able to get the equation for V inside the sphere. For outside the sphere, the charge density is 0 obviously, so you have to use Laplace's equation. I tried to do this but I can't anywhere near the form of the equation I'm meant to be getting :frown:
 
How about you show me your steps (for both inside and outside) and I'll see if I can spot where you are going wrong...
 
Inside the sphere:
[tex]\nabla^2V = \frac{1}{r}[/tex][tex]\frac{d}{dr}(r^2\frac{dV}{dr}) = \frac{\rho_{o}}{\epsilon_{o}}[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow V = - \frac{\rho_{o} r^2}{6\epsilon_{o}}[/tex]

Outside the sphere:
[tex]\nabla^2V = \frac{1}{r}[/tex][tex]\frac{d}{dr}(r^2\frac{dV}{dr}) = 0[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow r^2\frac{dV}{dr} = constant = a[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow V = \frac{-a}{r} + c[/tex]
I'm assuming that you now have to use some sort of boundary conditions...
 
Last edited:
dsta said:
Inside the sphere:
[tex]\nabla^2V = \frac{1}{r}[/tex][tex]\frac{d}{dr}(r^2\frac{dV}{dr}) = \frac{\rho_{o}}{\epsilon_{o}}[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow V = - \frac{\rho_{o} r^2}{6\epsilon_{o}}[/tex]

You're missing a minus sign in your first equation (although it looks like that's just a typo, since your answer has the correct sign)...More importantly, shouldn't you have two constants of integration for the solution to this 2nd order ODE?:wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K