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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the electric field from a charged wire, specifically transitioning from an initial equation (3) to a book's equation (4). Participants explore the implications of vector versus scalar quantities in the context of electric fields, symmetry considerations, and the role of geometry in the derivation process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 presents an initial equation for the electric field and seeks clarification on the transition from equation (3) to (4), questioning the removal of z' from the numerator.
  • Post 2 asserts that equation (3) is incorrect due to a mismatch between vector and scalar forms, suggesting that the book's equation (4) is correct and does not include z' in the numerator.
  • Post 3 emphasizes that symmetry in the problem implies only the x-component of the electric field survives, leading to the absence of z' in the numerator.
  • Post 4 reiterates the points made in Post 2, expressing confusion about the transition from equations (1) and (2) to (4) and the vector nature of the electric field.
  • Post 4 also discusses the derivation of the electric field using the cosine relationship and how it leads to the correct form as presented in the book, while questioning the initial approach taken in equation (1).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of equation (3) and the interpretation of the electric field components. There is no consensus on the initial approach, and multiple views on the derivation process are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of recognizing vector versus scalar quantities and the implications of symmetry in the problem. There are unresolved questions about the initial assumptions and the application of geometric relationships in the derivation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners interested in electromagnetism, particularly those grappling with the mathematical representation of electric fields and the implications of symmetry in physical systems.

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) [itex]\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'[/itex]


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


(3) Now, plugging this information into the electric field equation yields:
[itex]\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'[/itex]


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

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: [itex]\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'[/itex]

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

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

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

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

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
92
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
955
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K