Static charge density vs free charge density

superg33k
Messages
95
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A solid metal sphere of radius 'a' is concentric with a hollow metal sphere of inner radius '2a'. The space between the spheres is filled with a dielectric material of relative permittivity 'ε' carrying a uniform static charge density 'ρ0'. The charge density is zero outside the spheres.

My question:

In the answers at the back of my book 'p0' is equated to the free charge density 'pf'. Shouldn't it be equated to charge density?

I know I'm getting hung up on the wording but it might show a large gap in my understanding of dielectrics.

Homework Equations


Charge density = free charge density + bound charge density

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi superg33k! :smile:

as you know, an insulator can have a surface charge, and that will be free charge exactly the same as the free surface charge of a conductor …

unlike a conductor (in equilibrium), an insulator can also have free charge in the interior in the same way as it has on the surface (nothing to do with polarisation)

and "dielectric" is just a fancy word for "insulator"! :biggrin:

(the dielectric may of course also have some bound charge, due to polarisation, in the interior)
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top