Total energy of a shell charge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the electric potential energy of a spherical shell with surface charge density ##\sigma## and radius ##R##. Participants explore different approaches to the derivation, including integral methods and the use of spherical coordinates, while expressing confusion about the necessity of certain techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the formula for electric potential energy as ##U = \displaystyle {Q^2 \over 2R}## and attempts to derive it using an integral approach involving the electric field of the shell.
  • Another participant questions the initial derivation and suggests consulting external resources for clarification.
  • A later reply offers an alternative method of expressing the integral in a simplified form, indicating that it leads to the same result.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the use of spherical coordinates and the integration process, questioning how to derive the radius ##R## in the context of the integral.
  • One participant discusses the potential energy associated with assembling charge on the shell, noting that the energy required depends on the charge already present.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation methods, with multiple competing views on the necessity and correctness of using spherical coordinates and the integration techniques employed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in understanding the integration steps and the implications of using different coordinate systems, but these remain unresolved within the discussion.

Buffu
Messages
851
Reaction score
147
Suppose a spherical shell is kept at the orgin. Its surface charge density is ##\sigma## and radius is ##R##.

I think I remember the formula for its electric potential energy is ##U = \displaystyle {Q^2 \over 2R}##.

Now I want to derive it. I used ##\displaystyle U =\displaystyle\dfrac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} \vec E\cdot \vec E\ \ dv##.

I know that electric field by an sperical shell is ##Q\over R^2##.

So I got,

##\displaystyle U =\displaystyle\dfrac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} {Q^2\over R^4}\ \ dv = \displaystyle\dfrac{Q^2 }{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} {1 \over R^4 }\ \ dv##

Then I used ##v = {4\pi \over 3}R^3## to get ##\displaystyle \left({3v \over 4 \pi}\right)^{1/3} = R##

Back in integral, ##U = \displaystyle\dfrac{Q^2 }{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} \left({4 \pi \over {3v} }\right)^{4/3}\ \ dv##

For limits ##v \to \infty## I got the desired answer.

Is this correct ? I have some confusions because the proofs I saw on internet involve triple integral and spherical coordinates.

I think I am doing something wrong as why would anybody use spherical coordinates for such a simple proof ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Buffu said:
Suppose a spherical shell is kept at the orgin. Its surface charge density is ##\sigma## and radius is ##R##.

I think I remember the formula for its electric potential energy is ##U = \displaystyle {Q^2 \over 2R}##.

Now I want to derive it. I used ##\displaystyle U =\displaystyle\dfrac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} \vec E\cdot \vec E\ \ dv##.

I know that electric field by an sperical shell is ##Q\over R^2##.

So I got,

##\displaystyle U =\displaystyle\dfrac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} {Q^2\over R^4}\ \ dv = \displaystyle\dfrac{Q^2 }{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} {1 \over R^4 }\ \ dv##

Then I used ##v = {4\pi \over 3}R^3## to get ##\displaystyle \left({3v \over 4 \pi}\right)^{1/3} = R##

Back in integral, ##U = \displaystyle\dfrac{Q^2 }{8\pi}\int_{\text{Region}} \left({4 \pi \over {3v} }\right)^{4/3}\ \ dv##

For limits ##v \to \infty## I got the desired answer.

Is this correct ? I have some confusions because the proofs I saw on internet involve triple integral and spherical coordinates.

I think I am doing something wrong as why would anybody use spherical coordinates for such a simple proof ?
You could write the integral as (a much simplified version of spherical coordinates) ## \int \limits_{R_o}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{r^4} (4 \pi r^2) dr ## and you get the same result. Meanwhile, a (editing: scratch "alternative") proof of the original formula is to add ## dQ ## from ## Q= 0 ## to ## Q_o ## with ## dU=(\frac{Q}{R_o}) dQ ## so that ## U=Q_o^2/(2 R_o) ##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buffu
Charles Link said:
You could write the integral as (a much simplified version of spherical coordinates) ## \int \limits_{R_o}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{r^4} (4 \pi r^2) dr ## and you get the same result. Meanwhile, a (editing: scratch "alternative") proof of the original formula is to add ## dQ ## from ## Q= 0 ## to ## Q_o ## with ## dU=(\frac{Q}{R_o}) dQ ## so that ## U=Q_o^2/(2 R_o) ##.

I did not understand the integral.

Isnt ##\displaystyle \int E\cdot E dv = \iiint E\cdot E dx dy dz##.
How do you get ##R## in here ?
 
Buffu said:
I did not understand the integral.

Isnt ##\displaystyle \int E\cdot E dv = \iiint E\cdot E dx dy dz##.
How do you get ##R## in here ?
I did two different integrals. The first one is one that you did, over ## dv ## where you replaced ## r^4 ## with an expression for ## v ##. The simpler way to do that is to use the surface area of a sphere is ## 4 \pi r^2 ## so that with spherical symmetry ## dv=4 \pi r^2 \, dr ##. (Otherwise, in polar coordinates ## dv=r^2 sin(\theta) d \theta \, d \phi \, dr ## where ## \theta ## integrates from ## 0 ## to ## \pi ## and ## \phi ## integrates from ## 0 ## to ## 2 \pi ##.) ## \\ ## The second integral was one where you assemble the charge on a sphere, and the potential energy ## dU ## for each ## dQ ## that you add is ## dU=(Q/R_o)dQ ##. The energy required depends on the charge that is already there. The charge ## Q ## that is already there determines the potential ## V ## at that instant which the charge ## dQ ## encounters when it gets added to the shell. (You gave the formula for this one at the very beginning, but without a derivation.)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
872
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K