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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving Coulomb's law from the differential form of Gauss' Law, highlighting the confusion around the application of divergence in electrostatics. The user initially misapplies the divergence operator, leading to an incorrect expression for the electric field. After realizing the mistake, they clarify that the correct divergence for a spherically symmetric electric field should be applied. The final derivation correctly leads to Coulomb's law, confirming that the initial misunderstanding stemmed from an incorrect approach to the divergence operation. This exchange illustrates the importance of accurately applying mathematical principles in physics.
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.
 
Back
Top