Using Gauss' Law (differential form) to get Coulomb's law.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on deriving Coulomb's Law from the differential form of Gauss' Law. The user initially misapplies the divergence operator, leading to an incorrect expression for the electric field. By correctly applying the divergence operator as \(\nabla \cdot E = \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{d(r^2 E)}{dr}\), the user successfully derives the correct formula: \(E = \frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}\). This highlights the importance of accurately applying mathematical operators in electrostatics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gauss' Law (differential form)
  • Familiarity with electric field concepts
  • Knowledge of spherical symmetry in electrostatics
  • Basic calculus for integration and differentiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of divergence in vector calculus
  • Learn about the integral form of Gauss' Law
  • Explore the relationship between charge density and electric field
  • Investigate other electrostatic laws and their derivations
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism, educators teaching electrostatics, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of electric fields.

WraithM
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I don't really know much about serious business electrostatics. I've only taken the AP Physics C E&M exam (using the integral form), but I was looking at wikipedia and I was curious about the differential form of Gauss' Law.

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong with this. I'm trying to derive coulomb's law (just so I get a better understanding of how to use the differential form) from the differential form of Gauss' law.

So, you have

\rho (r) = \frac{Q}{V(r)}

and I guess for a point charge, you'd use a spherical volume, so,

V(r) = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3

Therefore,

\rho (r) = \frac{3Q}{4\pi r^3}

Then plug that into Gauss' law:

\nabla \cdot E = \frac{3Q}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^3}

Because there's spherical symmetry, I'm just going to ignore the rest of the divergence operator and just say

\nabla \cdot E = \frac{dE}{dr}

Perhaps this is where I went wrong, and the divergence is way more complicated than that for this situation, but this makes sense to me intuitively.

Then you'd have after separating variables and ignoring a negative sign:

E = \int_\infty^r \frac{3Q}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r^3} dr

E = \frac{3Q}{8\pi\epsilon_0 r^2}

\frac{3Q}{8\pi\epsilon_0 r^2} \neq \frac{Q}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r^2}

lol wat? There's a 2 in the denominator when there should be a 3 to make the 3 in the top cancel out and be happy. What am I doing wrong? Or am I just making utter non-sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lol, I was doing the divergence wrong, as I thought. I was being stupid.

\nabla \cdot E = \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{d(r^2 E)}{dr}

:/

integrate and you get:

E = \frac{\rho r}{3 \epsilon_0}

replace rho

E = \frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}

k, good. I'm not crazy, just doing it wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
831
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
680
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K