Question about Conducting Sphere

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field outside a conducting sphere with a cavity containing a point charge. When the sphere is grounded, the inner cavity wall acquires a charge of -q, while the outer surface remains neutral. The principle of superposition allows for the total electric field to be determined by considering the contributions from the point charge, the inner cavity charge, and the outer surface charge. The uniqueness principle asserts that if one solution is found, it is the only solution, thus confirming that the charge on the outer surface is uniformly distributed. To apply Gauss' Law effectively, one must demonstrate that the charge distribution on the outer surface is uniform, despite the unspecified location of the point charge inside the cavity.
AngelofMusic
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
In one of our exercises, there is a conducting sphere (S2) with a cavity inside (S1). A point charge is placed inside the cavity. We were told to try and find the electric field outside by following a set of steps.

1. Imagine that S2 is grounded. In that case, the charge on the cavity wall (S1) is -q and the charge on the outer surface is 0.

2. Imagine that only S2 exists, with no cavity and no point charge.

3. Use super-position from step 1 & 2 to determine the total electric field outside the original shell.

a) The charge on the inner cavity wall is -q.

b) The charge on the outer wall is +q (I assume this is because the conductor should remain neutral?).

c) This is where I get lost. The solution says that:

From superposition and uniqueness, it can be inferred that the charge over S2 is uniformly distributed. Hence, it can be treated as though a charge of q was placed at the centre of the sphere.

What does this mean, exactly? Superposition and uniqueness? How has the previous parts proved this, exactly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by AngelofMusic
From superposition and uniqueness, it can be inferred that the charge over S2 is uniformly distributed. Hence, it can be treated as though a charge of q was placed at the centre of the sphere.

What does this mean, exactly? Superposition and uniqueness? How has the previous parts proved this, exactly?
The previous parts have not proved it. One of the things that is supposed to be learned in E&M is that superposition and uniqueness apply to solutions of Poisson's equation for electrostatics.

Superposition in this case means that the field generated by a charge distribution is the same as the vector sum of the fields that would be produced by all the individual pieces of the charge distribution. There are three pieces: the charge put inside, the charge on the inner surface, and the charge on the outer surface. By putting the charge inside and grounding the sphere, you account for two pieces. By having a charged sphere without a cavity, you account for the third.

Uniqueness is a principle, kind of like a rule of thumb that always works, that says, if you find one solution to the problem, then it is the solution. So, basically, uniqueness is the byword that transforms the result you get from the superposition approach into the answer to the problem.

It certainly isn't at all straightforward to me (i.e. I think it sounds pretty hand-wavey).
 
Last edited:
Ah, okay. Thanks a lot!

So, basically, to solve the problem of the electric field, I could sum up the previous two situations and see that the total charge enclosed would be:

+q (pt charge) -q (inner cavity) +q (outer surface) = +q. And then draw a Gaussian surface over the sphere, and use Gauss' Law to figure out the Electric field, right?
 
Originally posted by AngelofMusic
So, basically, to solve the problem of the electric field, I could sum up the previous two situations and see that the total charge enclosed would be:

+q (pt charge) -q (inner cavity) +q (outer surface) = +q. And then draw a Gaussian surface over the sphere, and use Gauss' Law to figure out the Electric field, right?
Yeah, kind of. But to use Gauss' Law, you need symmetry, and the location of the point charge that you put inside the cavity is unspecified (and the shape of the cavity too, if I remember correctly). So, you have to have some argument (in order to do this somewhat rigorously) in order to show that the only thing that matters is the charge distribution on the outer surface and that this charge distribution is uniform.
 
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