B Integration Bounds for E-field Calcualtion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the E-field for a uniformly spherical charge distribution outside the sphere. The user is uncertain about the integration bounds for the variable 's', questioning why they are set from z-r to z+r. They explore the relationship between s, r, and z, noting that reversing the bounds would yield a negative result. Clarification is provided that the proper bounds align with the change of coordinates in the text, specifically when θ equals 0 and π. The text referenced is by Corson and Lorrain, which is acknowledged to be less rigorous than Stratton's work.
Ren Figueroa
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi guys.
I’m looking at the brute force way at getting the E-field for a uniformly spherical charge distribution. The location of the E-field of interest is anywhere outside of the sphere. Here are some images

2144084E-89F7-4467-9BDF-A100591ED4FE.jpeg

815293ED-B605-4270-851E-CC04F3C598B9.jpeg

Everything makes sense. I’m just not sure why the bounds for ‘s’ where z-r to z+r. From my perspective, z+r is the left hemisphere while z-r is the right hemisphere because we can consider the relationship between s, r, and z from the vector relation s=z-r. If i set the positive axis to point to the left, if sort of makes sense to integrate from z+r to z-r but this would obviously yield a negative result. So, I’m curious about detmining the proper bounds.
 

Attachments

  • 2144084E-89F7-4467-9BDF-A100591ED4FE.jpeg
    2144084E-89F7-4467-9BDF-A100591ED4FE.jpeg
    47.4 KB · Views: 696
  • 815293ED-B605-4270-851E-CC04F3C598B9.jpeg
    815293ED-B605-4270-851E-CC04F3C598B9.jpeg
    52.8 KB · Views: 597
Physics news on Phys.org
I think what happens here is that when the book does the change of coordinates, it matches limits of integration appropriately. When θ = 0 (lower limit), s = z - r and when θ = π (upper limit), s = z + r.

By the way, is this Stratton's book you're looking at?
 
I'm so embarrassed. You're right. Just plugging in the prior bounds gets the result. I thought of doing that but I sort of just eye-balled it and thought it wouldn't give me the result I was looking for. Sorry about that.

It's a text by Corson and Lorrain. Definitely not as rigorous as the Stratton text.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top