Question about calculating electric field made by finite point charges

AI Thread Summary
Calculating the electric field at a point occupied by a point charge leads to a singularity, making it impossible to determine a finite electric field at that exact location. The discussion emphasizes that since the electric field represents the force on a charge, placing another charge at the same point as an existing charge is physically unfeasible. It is suggested that approaching this scenario would break down Coulomb's law and invoke other forces, such as nuclear forces. The conversation also touches on the complexities of integrating electric fields over continuous charge distributions, particularly when singularities are present. Overall, the existence of an electric field at a point occupied by a charge is deemed non-physical.
gotjrgkr
Messages
84
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi!
I have a question about calculating electric field made by finite point charges
q_{1},q_{2},..., q_{n}.
From the book "introduction to electrodynamics", you can see that the electric field E at a point P made by the finite point charges can be calculated by the below equation;
E(P) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\sum^{n}_{i=1}\frac{q_{i}}{r_{i}}\hat{r_{i}} where r_{i}'s are the distances between a point charge and the point P.

I can see that above electric field makes sense if P is located at a different position from each point charge q_{i}.
However, what if P is located at one of those places at which the point charges are located? For example, what is the electric field at the position at which q_{1} is located?? As you can see, the electric field function has a singular point at the point, so that I think it is impossible to calculate it. Am I right?? Does it mean that the electric field doesn't exist at the point??



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org


Then you have an infinite electric field at that point :cry:

Really though, I don't think that this situation would be physically possible. The field is representative of the force that a charge would experience at a given location. Since that location is occupied, you can't put a charge there. At least that's my understanding.

I believe that if you put a charge infinitely close to another charge, the whole idea of coulombs law would break down, since now you are entering the domain of the nuclear force, and I am positive other laws apply.
 


QuarkCharmer said:
Then you have an infinite electric field at that point :cry:

Really though, I don't think that this situation would be physically possible. The field is representative of the force that a charge would experience at a given location. Since that location is occupied, you can't put a charge there. At least that's my understanding.

I believe that if you put a charge infinitely close to another charge, the whole idea of coulombs law would break down, since now you are entering the domain of the nuclear force, and I am positive other laws apply.

Thanks for your responding!

I actually asked you above one because of some equations.
I attach it here.
div.3.jpg

The divergence of E.jpg

Div.2.jpg


As you can check in the first equation, it represents the electric field at a point r occurred by continuously distributed electric charges.

Here's my question in the second picture...
It is said that because the charge density out of the electric charges is zero everywhere, the integral of the equation in the first picture can be extended over the whole space...
But, in this case, you can see that the integrand inevitably contains the singularity at r=r'. What does it mean? I can't understand the meaning of the integral;;
Furthermore, if r indicates a point within the volume of the distributed charges, it would be more complicating...
 
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