Potential inside an non conducting sphere given the potential on the sphere.

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the potential and electric field inside a non-conducting sphere given the surface potential, one must solve the Laplace and Poisson equations. The divergence of the electric field relates to charge distribution, indicating that an induced charge may exist even if the sphere has no net charge. The potential inside the sphere differs from that on the surface, requiring boundary conditions for accurate solutions. Decomposing the potential into spherical modes can simplify solving for the unknown coefficients. Griffiths' book is recommended for further guidance on this topic.
sonjar88
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Given the equation for the potential "on" a non conducting sphere how can the potential and electric field inside the sphere be calculated?
If there is a potential on the sphere am I to assume that there must therefore be a charge build up in the sphere? Is this just calculated by the Laplace of the potential? How does the potential inside the sphere differ from that on the sphere?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you do not know the charge distribution inside the sphere, you cannot solve this problem. I would guess that what you are actually looking for is field inside a sphere of linear dielectric with surface charge distribution and neutral interior. In that case, yes, you solve Laplace equation. You know that \nabla \cdot E = 0[/tex] from Maxwell's eqns, and E = -\nabla V is the equation for potential. In static case, you get \nabla^2F = 0, which you solve for given boundary conditions. If you decompose your surface potential into spherical Bessel functions, it should be a snap.
 
Thank you for your reply.

All I am given is:
The potential on a non-conducting sphere or radius a is given by
V = V0(cos2\theta +cos\theta-1)

And with that I should be able to find the potential and electric fields inside and outside the sphere and the surface charge density?
 
sonjar88 said:
Thank you for your reply.

All I am given is:
The potential on a non-conducting sphere or radius a is given by
V = V0(cos2\theta +cos\theta-1)

And with that I should be able to find the potential and electric fields inside and outside the sphere and the surface charge density?

K^2 is slightly mistaken since the divergence of the electric field is related to charge, we can express charge in terms of the Laplacian operator on the potential. Specifically,

\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}

\mathbf{E} = -\nabla V

\nabla^2 V = -\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}

The applied electric field will induce a charge distribution which is why the right-hand side of Gauss' Law is non-zero here even though the original sphere has no net charge.

Since you are already given the potential distribution on the surface, it is simple vector calculus to find the applied field and induced charge distribution on the surface.

Now finding the distribution of charge, the potential, and the field INSIDE the sphere is a different matter as K^2 is talking about. You then have to solve for the Poisson Equation. First, the solution to the Laplacian Equation,

\nabla^2 V = 0

gives you your homogeneous solution. Then you have to solve for the Poisson Equation given the boundary condition for the voltage and charge on the surface.

\nabla^2 V = -\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}

This is usually done by decomposing the solution and boundary condition into spherical modes and solving for the unknown coefficients by mode matching with the boundary condition.

EDIT: Griffiths' book gives a good explanation on how to do this.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top