Potential of an infinite rod using Green's function

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
272

Homework Statement


Same problem as in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=589704 but instead of a spherical shape, consider an infinite line of constant charge density \lambda _0.


Homework Equations


Given in the link.


The Attempt at a Solution


I assume Phi will be the same along any parallel line to the charge distribution. So I can calculate \Phi (y) in an x-y plane where x is the line direction and y=0 is where the line is.
I get that |\vec x - \vec x'|=\sqrt {x^2+y^2} so that \Phi (y)=\int _{-\infty }^{\infty } \frac{\lambda _0 dx}{\sqrt {y^2+x^2}}=\lambda _0 \ln ( \sqrt {y^2+x^2 } ) \big | _{-\infty}^{\infty} but this diverge.
By intuition I know that the equipotentials must be parallel to the charge distribution but here I get that the potential is infinite everywhere.
I don't know what's going on.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Again this time you'll need to subtract an infinite constant to make your potential finite and meaningful. The green's function you used assumes the sources are localized, i.e., zero boundary condition at infinity, whiles your source extend to infinity, therefore it won't work.
 
sunjin09 said:
Again this time you'll need to subtract an infinite constant to make your potential finite and meaningful. The green's function you used assumes the sources are localized, i.e., zero boundary condition at infinity, whiles your source extend to infinity, therefore it won't work.
Hmm so I cannot solve the problem via the given formula?
 
My professor said today that the problem cannot be solved via the integral formula given because rho does not satisfy some properties. The problem was ill posed. :smile:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top