Potential near the center of a charged hollow sphere

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of electric potential near the center of a charged hollow sphere, referencing problem 2.28 from Nayfeh and Brussel's "Electricity and Magnetism." The potential is derived using the near-field expansion from equation 2.62, leading to an unexpected dependence on the angle θ in polar coordinates. The participant initially believed their integration was correct but later recognized the error stemmed from using a two-dimensional diagram for a three-dimensional problem. This highlights the importance of dimensional accuracy in electromagnetic calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric potential and charge distributions
  • Familiarity with vector calculus in three dimensions
  • Knowledge of symmetry principles in physics
  • Experience with integration techniques in electromagnetism
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of electric potential from charge distributions in three dimensions
  • Study the implications of symmetry in electrostatics
  • Practice solving problems involving near-field expansions in electromagnetism
  • Examine the use of dimensional analysis in physical problems
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and professionals working in electromagnetism, particularly those focusing on electric potential calculations and charge distribution analysis.

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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K