Prove Electric Force on Triangle ABC Lies on Bisector

  • Thread starter Thread starter sma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hard
AI Thread Summary
In triangle ABC, the discussion focuses on proving that the electric force at point A lies along the bisector of angle BAC, based on the properties of electric fields and charge distributions. The proof involves rotating the triangle and demonstrating that the electric field direction remains consistent, leading to a contradiction if it were assumed not to lie on the bisector. The use of polar coordinates is suggested to show that contributions from charged line segments cancel out, reinforcing the conclusion. Participants emphasize the importance of adhering to forum rules regarding solution requests and contributions. The conversation highlights the mathematical principles underlying the behavior of electric fields in relation to geometric configurations.
sma
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Consider triangle ABC,the continues charges distribution lies on the side of BC with the linear charge density such as m,prove that the direction of electric force in the point A lies on the bisector of the viewing angle BAC
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can prove that almost without knowing anything about electric field! We only need to know that field is determined by electric charge and that laws of physics are the same in all non-accelerated coordinate systems.

We will use this simple theory:

If we rotate the triangle (around any axis) by an angle alfa then the field will also rotate by the same angle (around the same axis). This can be proved by solving this problem in a rotated coordinate system (by alfa) where the rotated triangle seems the same as original triangle in original system (so the solution is the same). Then we transform the field vector back into original sistem and we find out it has rotated by alfa.

Proof by contadiction:
Let's suppose that the field does not lie on the bisector. If we rotate the triangle around bisector by alfa=180 degrees, then the field will also rotate, resulting in changed direction of the field. However this rotation transforms triangle back into itself! We got a different electric field from the same charge distribution! This is imposible, so the assumption that field does not lie on bisector is wrong.
 
Last edited:
I think your assumpion is not right.why If we rotate the triangle around bisector by alfa=180 degrees, then rotation transforms riangle back into itself! It is true only for AB=AC!
 
Sorry, I missread the question. Here is proof for general triangle:

Use polar coordinates, with the bisector for fi=0 axes. It is enough to show, that
sections of charged line on intervals (fi,fi+dfi) and (-fi,-fi-dfi) exactly cancel each other
out (as far as perpendicular component of E is concerned). Since sin(-fi)=sin(fi), it is enough to show that the magnitudes are the same.

Contributions of these sections are:

r^-2*dl (times a constant)

We can prove that both magnitudes of dE are the same by proving

r^-2*dl/dfi=const (independent of fi) (1)

This is easy: if delta is angle between r and BC, then

dl=r*dfi/cos(delta), r=d/cos(delta)

where d is the shortest distance between (infinitely extended) BC line and point A.

If you put dl=dfi*d/cos(delta)^2 and r=d/cos(delta) into equation (1),
you find out the expression is really independent of fi.
 
Last edited:
excuse me,I don't underestand your solution
 
Sma: You have posted this question TWICE in a very short period of time

and don't ask for solutions, and also you MUST give attempt to soultion.

Lojzek: never give full solutions

Please read and follow the rules of this forum.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top