What is the issue with this electrostatics problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NicolaiTheDane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrostatics
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around an electrostatics problem involving two point charges, one with a charge of 1 and another with -3, positioned symmetrically in the xy plane. The user attempts to derive a general function for the electric field using Coulomb's law but encounters issues with the resulting vector function not being divergence-free. It is clarified that while the two-dimensional function will not be divergence-free, including the z-component of the electric field would resolve this issue, making it divergence-free except at the charge locations. The conversation also highlights the inaccuracies of representing 3D electric field lines in a 2D diagram, particularly regarding the density of flux lines. Overall, the key takeaway is the importance of considering all dimensions in electrostatics calculations to ensure accuracy.
NicolaiTheDane
Messages
100
Reaction score
10

Homework Statement


upload_2018-9-9_19-9-35.png


I'm suppose to set a general function of the electric field, at any point in the xy plane. As the picture shows, there are 2 point charges with 1 charge, and 1 point charge with -3 charge. Each of them are equally distanced from the origin, and all 3 are evenly spaced apart.

Homework Equations


I'm used Coulumbs law
upload_2018-9-9_19-11-28.png


The Attempt at a Solution


First I defined all the point charge locations, along with an arbitrary point, to represent the unknown point of the function.
upload_2018-9-9_19-12-29.png

upload_2018-9-9_19-12-34.png


Then I merely use Coumlumbs law, to add up all the expressions:
upload_2018-9-9_19-13-8.png

upload_2018-9-9_19-13-33.png


The final expression isn't pretty at all though:
upload_2018-9-9_19-14-16.png


The field as displayed by maple (if one fixes the fieldstrength, otherwise some arrows become very very small) looks like this:
upload_2018-9-9_19-17-5.png


Which to me looks about right. However the vector function isn't divergence free, which suggests I have messed up something. What am I doing wrong?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-9-9_19-9-35.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-9-35.png
    3.6 KB · Views: 730
  • upload_2018-9-9_19-11-28.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-11-28.png
    1,001 bytes · Views: 344
  • upload_2018-9-9_19-12-29.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-12-29.png
    2.4 KB · Views: 371
  • upload_2018-9-9_19-12-34.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-12-34.png
    513 bytes · Views: 377
  • upload_2018-9-9_19-13-8.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-13-8.png
    2.5 KB · Views: 367
  • upload_2018-9-9_19-13-33.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-13-33.png
    546 bytes · Views: 373
  • upload_2018-9-9_19-14-16.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-14-16.png
    5.3 KB · Views: 374
  • upload_2018-9-9_19-17-5.png
    upload_2018-9-9_19-17-5.png
    23.4 KB · Views: 405
Physics news on Phys.org
The two dimensional function will not be divergence free, but if you included the z-component of the electric field, it would then be divergence free except at the locations of the electrical charges. ## \\ ## I didn't carefully check your equations, but they seem to be correct.
 
  • Like
Likes NicolaiTheDane
Charles Link said:
The two dimensional function will not be divergence free, but if you included the z-component of the electric field, it would then be divergence free except at the locations of the electrical charges. ## \\ ## I didn't carefully check your equations, but they seem to be correct.

Ahh alright then. Thanks a bunch! :)
 
NicolaiTheDane said:
Ahh alright then. Thanks a bunch! :)
What is also the case is that when you draw lines of flux for a 3-D case in two dimensions, the result is inherent inaccuracies where the density of lines doesn't fall off as inverse square, etc. The line density will be ## \frac{1}{r} ## in a 2-D diagram of a 3 dimensional case if they are drawn as continuous lines.
 
Last edited:
And an addition to post 2: You can see this with a single point charge: If you let ## E=\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_o}(\frac{x}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}} \hat{i} +\frac{y}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}} \hat{j}) ##, the divergence is non-zero everywhere, but if you write it as ## E=\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_o}(\frac{x}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{3/2}} \hat{i}+\frac{y}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{3/2}} \hat{j}+\frac{z}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{3/2}} \hat{k} ) ## and compute ## \nabla \cdot E ##, you will find it is indeed zero everywhere except at ## (0,0,0) ##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K