Integration By Substitution It's Been A While

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of integration by substitution in the context of calculating the electric field due to a line charge. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the integration process and the presence of variables in the integral.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the setup of the integral and the appropriate substitution for integration. Questions arise about the role of the variable x in the integration process and how to handle it when substituting. Some participants suggest alternative substitutions to simplify the integral.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different substitution methods and expressing their confusion about the integration steps. Some guidance has been offered regarding potential substitutions, but there is no clear consensus on the best approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the integral and the challenge of integrating with respect to x while attempting to express everything in terms of u. There is also mention of the geometry involved in the problem, which adds to the complexity of the integration.

Lucretius
Messages
151
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



It's been god knows how long since I've had to use integration by substitution. I've totally forgotten it. I am trying to integrate to solve for the value of an electric field at a given point. The integral I am trying to solve is:

(2kz/4(pi)(epsilon_0)*1/(z^2+x^2)^(3/2) dx.

I know the answer is (2kz/4(pi)(epsilon_0)*(x/[z^2(z^2+x^2)^(1/2)]

Homework Equations



I'm sure I have to set u=(z^2+x^2). This makes du = 2x.

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm confused as to what to do now. The equation I'm integrating doesn't have an x in it anywhere. I don't think I can say du/2x=dx because I will have x's and u's in the integral, which is no good. However, I can't just ignore it.

Also, how did that z^2 get in there on the bottom? z is a constant in this integration and since u = z^2+x^2, the z-term drops right out. I feel terribly lost.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's really confusing. Why don't you just post the actual problem you are working on and how you tried to solve it?
 
Sure thing.

I'm trying to find the electric field at an arbitrary distance z above a straight line segment, where the arbitrary distance z is measured above one of the endpoints of the line segment.

Relevant Equations:

We are given that the electric field of a line charge is [tex]\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_P \frac{\lambda (R)}{r^2}dl[/tex].

Attempt At Solution.

A little element of the electric field is going to be pointed in two directions. One will be in the z-direction. The other will be in the direction parallel to the line. Using the geometry of the problem, I found that

[tex]dE=\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\frac{\lambda dx}{r^2}(cos(\theta) \textbf{z}+sin(\theta)\textbf{x})=\frac{\lambda}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\frac{\lamda dx}{r^3}(z\textbf{z}+x\textbf{x})[/tex], where the bold indicates unit vectors.

I split this up into two integrals. This is where I have to integrate by parts, and where I get stuck. I have for instance, one integral which is [tex]\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_0^L \frac{2 \lambda z}{(z^2+x^2)^{3/2}}}dx[/tex].

I set my u = (z^2+x^2) and my du is then 2xdx. I am confused because there is no x in my numerator, and I can't just say du/2x=dx because then I am going to have both x's and u's in my equation when I integrate it.
 
Lucretius said:
I split this up into two integrals. This is where I have to integrate by parts, and where I get stuck. I have for instance, one integral which is [tex]\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_0^L \frac{2 \lambda z}{(z^2+x^2)^{3/2}}}dx[/tex].

I set my u = (z^2+x^2) and my du is then 2xdx. I am confused because there is no x in my numerator, and I can't just say du/2x=dx because then I am going to have both x's and u's in my equation when I integrate it.

Well, if [itex]u = (z^2+x^2)[/itex], then [itex]2x=2\sqrt{u-z^2}[/itex] right?...but I don't think that makes the integral any easier!

Try the substitution [tex]u=\frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+z^2}}[/tex] instead :wink:
 
gabbagabbahey said:
Well, if [itex]u = (z^2+x^2)[/itex], then [itex]2x=2\sqrt{u-z^2}[/itex] right?...but I don't think that makes the integral any easier!

Try the substitution [tex]u=\frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+z^2}}[/tex] instead :wink:

Ah, I got it, I think.

If I use the u-substitution you suggest, I get [tex]du=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2+z^2}}-\frac{x^2}{(x^2+z^2)^{3/2}}dx[/tex], which, getting a common denominator yields:

[tex]\frac{z^2}{(x^2+z^2)^{3/2}}[/tex].

So [tex]\frac{du}{z^2}=\frac{dx}{(x^2+z^2}dx[/tex]

My integral is then just [tex]\frac{\lambda z}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\int_a^b \frac{du}{z^2}[/tex] which, after re-substituting for u back into x's, and plugging in the bounds 0 and L, I get

[tex]\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \frac{\lambda z L}{z^2(z^2+x^2)^{3/2}}[/tex].

Thanks, though I still wonder how I would have thought of that particular u-substitution on my own!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K