Potential near the center of a charged hollow sphere

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the electric potential near the center of a charged hollow sphere using a specific near-field expansion equation. The user initially finds a dependence on the angle θ, which contradicts the expected symmetry of the problem. After feedback, the user realizes the mistake was due to using a two-dimensional diagram for a three-dimensional scenario. This highlights the importance of visualizing problems correctly in physics. Ultimately, the user acknowledges the error and appreciates the clarification provided.
Gene Naden
Messages
320
Reaction score
64
I worked problem 2.28 of Nayfeh and Brussel's Electricity and Magnetism. The problem asks for the potential near the center of a charged hollow sphere, based on the near-field expansion given by equation 2.62, which is:
##\Phi=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}[\frac{dq}{r^\prime}+ \vec r \cdot \int \frac{\vec r^\prime}{{r^\prime}^3} dq + \frac{1}{2} \int (\frac {3 (\vec r \cdot \vec r^\prime)^2}{r^{\prime^5}}-\frac{r^2}{r^{\prime 2}})dq]##

For the first term I get something proportional to the charge. The second integral vanishes by symmetry. I expect the third integral to also vanish. The solutions manual says that it does vanish. But when I do the integration I get a dependence on ##\theta##, the angle from the z axis in polar coordinates. I get:
##\frac{\sigma R}{\epsilon_0}\frac{1}{4}R^{-2} r^2(1-rcos(2\theta))##

where ##\vec r## is the vector to the point where the potential is calculated.

This seems physically wrong since by symmetry the potential should not depend on ##\theta##. My question is, did I do the integral wrong, or is equation 2.62 wrong/inapplicable, or is my reasoning wrong?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's hard to tell where you went wrong if you don't show your work.
 
Yes I see your point. I see my error. I used a two dimensional diagram for a three dimensional problem.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top