Solving Electric Field: From (3) to (4)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the electric field from a charged wire along the z-axis, emphasizing the transition from the initial equation to the final expression in a textbook. The main point is that the numerator in the electric field equation should not include the variable z', as only the x-component survives due to symmetry. The participants clarify that the vector nature of the electric field must be considered, leading to the conclusion that the correct form of the equation aligns with the book's representation. The confusion arises from the need to apply the cosine relationship to isolate the x-component of the electric field. Ultimately, understanding the symmetry and vector components is crucial for correctly deriving the electric field equation.
jumi
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
So there's this situation going on:
http://imageshack.us/a/img826/7398/physicsforums.png

Going from the definition of an electric field:
(1) \vec{E} ( \vec{x} ) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} ∫ \frac{\vec{x} - \vec{x'}}{| \vec{x} - \vec{x'} | ^3} ρ( \vec{x'}) d^3x'


(2) The ρ(\vec{x'})d^3x' reduces to λdz'. And \vec{x} - \vec{x'} = x \hat{i} - z' \hat{k} = \sqrt{x^2 + z'^{2}}.


(3) Now, plugging this information into the electric field equation yields:
\vec{E} ( \vec{x} ) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \int^{l}_{-l} \frac{\sqrt{x^2 + z'^{2}}}{(\sqrt{x^2 + z'^{2}})^3} λdz'


(4) However, the book (Electromagnetism by Pollack and Stump) shows:
E_{x}(x,0,0) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \int^{l}_{-l} \frac{x}{(\sqrt{x^2 + z'^{2}})^3} λdz'

How do we get from (3) to (4)? Why is z' only removed from the numerator?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your formula (3) is obviously wrong, because on the left-hand side is a vector and on the right-hand side a scalar quantity.

From (1) and (2) you immediately write down (4). So your book is correct. There is no z' in the numerator of the x component!
 
so the charged wire is along z axis so by symmetry only x component will survive so
z will be absent in numerator and beware it is a vector.
 
vanhees71 said:
Your formula (3) is obviously wrong, because on the left-hand side is a vector and on the right-hand side a scalar quantity.

From (1) and (2) you immediately write down (4). So your book is correct. There is no z' in the numerator of the x component!

I don't understand how I could just go from (1) and (2) to (4)...

andrien said:
so the charged wire is along z axis so by symmetry only x component will survive so
z will be absent in numerator and beware it is a vector.

Or why the numerator doesn't have a vector magnitude, whereas the demoninator does...


I was, however, able to get the correct answer, just not using the full notation from equation (1).

So I start with: \vec{E} ( \vec{x} ) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} ∫ \frac{\vec{x} - \vec{x'}}{| \vec{x} - \vec{x'} | ^3} ρ( \vec{x'}) d^3x'

And since d\vec{E} generated by dq on the line will be symmetric (i.e. only the x-component will survive), we can say dE_{x} = d\vec{E}cos(\theta).

Therefore: dE = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \frac{1}{r^2} dq, where r = | \vec{x} - \vec{x'}| = \sqrt{x^2 + z'^2}

Therefore: dE_{x} = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \frac{1}{x^2 + z'^2} \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2 + z'^2}} λdz' from cos(\theta) = \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2 + z'^2}} and dq = λdz'

Which gives the result in the book: E_{x}(x,0,0) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \int^{l}_{-l} \frac{x}{(\sqrt{x^2 + z'^{2}})^3} λdz'.

So was I supposed to recognize that I needed to use the cos(θ) relationship from the beginning? I'm also still confused on how the vector difference only acts on the denominator, if I were to just use equation (1).

Thank in advance.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top