Method of images and spherical coordinates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the electric potential due to a point charge located above an infinite conducting plane using the method of images. Participants explore the transition from Cartesian to spherical coordinates and the implications for the potential in different regions of space.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the setup of the problem and expresses confusion about the correct formulation of the distance between the point charge and the image charge in spherical coordinates.
  • Another participant suggests that the two formulations of the distance, involving either the dot product or the product of magnitudes, yield the same value.
  • A different participant challenges this assertion, arguing that the two expressions are not equivalent and provides reasoning based on the definition of the dot product.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the geometric interpretation of the angle between the vectors in question, with a focus on how this affects the potential calculation.
  • Another participant reiterates the mathematical relationship for the distance and confirms that the potential is indeed zero on the xy-plane as expected.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equivalence of the two formulations for the distance in spherical coordinates. While some assert they are the same, others argue that they are not, leading to an unresolved debate on this point.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of correctly interpreting angles in spherical coordinates and their implications for potential calculations. There is an ongoing uncertainty regarding the correct formulation of the distance and the resulting potential in the context of the method of images.

josephsanders
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
I am having trouble with the magnitude of distance vector in spherical coordinates.
I am finding the potential everywhere in space due to a point charge a distance 'a' on the z-axis above an infinite xy-plane held at zero potential. This problem is fairly straight forward; place an image charge q' = -q at position -a on the z-axis. I have the solution in cartesian coordinates but I am having trouble writing it in spherical coordinates and this bothers me.

Suppose the position vector of the real charge is R = a\hat{z} and the image charge is R'= -a\hat{z}. So in spherical coordinates the magnitude of |r-R'| = (r^2 + R'^2 - 2rR'cosθ)^(1/2). My question lies in the last term. If "2rR'" refers to the magnitude of r times the magnitude of R' that would imply that the potential is zero everywhere since |R'| = |R|. So then I thought maybe it would make more sense to write |r-R'| = (r^2 + R'^2 - 2r⋅R'cosθ)^(1/2). Because then we would get that the potential is only zero on the xy-plane as desired. However when we are deriving the distance formula in spherical coordinates from the cartesian coordinates we have that (x,y,z) = (rsinθcosφ,rsinθsinφ,rcosθ) where the 'r' here does refer to the magnitude so I don't see how we can get the dot product that we would need to have the potential not vanish.

I hope I explained what I was confused on well enough! I know that this is the right answer for the method of images problem with a conducting sphere so I must be thinking about something wrong.EDIT: Actually I understand my error now. I wasn't thinking of θ as the angle between R' and r. So the angle in the two magnitude calculations is not actually the same angle. Thank you to those who helped!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The difference in the two formula you show is 2r⋅R'cosθ or 2rR'cosθ. They have a same value.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
The difference in the two formula you show is 2r⋅R'cosθ or 2rR'cosθ. They have a same value.
I don't think they are the same since if we use the dot product definition r⋅R' = rR'cosθ, then that would mean 2r⋅R'cosθ = 2rR'cos^2θ right?
 
I see you mean by r⋅R' inner product of vectors
\mathbf{r} \cdot \mathbf{R'}
Then mathematics says that side length of triangle with other side lengths r,R' with angle ##\theta## between is
|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R'}|=\sqrt{r^2+R'^2-2rR'\cos\theta}
On the x-y plane where ##\theta=\pm \pi/2##, ##\cos \theta=0## which gives zero potential there as you expect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: josephsanders
anuttarasammyak said:
I see you mean by r⋅R' inner product of vectors
\mathbf{r} \cdot \mathbf{R'}
Then mathematics says that side length of triangle with other side lengths r,R' with angle ##\theta## between is
|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R'}|=\sqrt{r^2+R'^2-2rR'\cos\theta}
On the x-y plane where ##\theta=\pm \pi/2##, ##\cos \theta=0## which gives zero potential there as you expect.
@josephsanders ,

In terms of the angle, ##\theta##, as you are using it as a spherical coordinate, the angle between ##\mathbf{r}## and ## \mathbf{R'}## is ##\pi - \theta##. The angle ##\theta## is between the positive z-axis and ##\mathbf{r}##, where as ## \mathbf{R'}## lies along the negative z-axis.

Since ##\cos (\theta) = -\cos(\pi - \theta)## the result you need is

##\displaystyle \quad \quad |\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R'}|=\sqrt{r^2+R'^2+2rR'\cos\theta \ }##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
641