Electromagnetism: Can anyone find the mistake?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving the electric field from a charged ring and addressing a mistake in the integration process. The initial formula for the electric field is provided, and the user attempts to show that the electric field from a circular sheet of charge can be expressed in a specific form. A key error identified is the incorrect factor of 4 instead of the expected 2, attributed to a missed multiplication during integration. The user realizes that the substitution in the integral required a correction that was overlooked, leading to the confusion. The conversation highlights the importance of careful integration and substitution in electromagnetism calculations.
*Alice*
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
given: the electric field at a point on the axis a distance x from the plane of a ring is E = \frac {q*x} {4*pi*E0*(x^2+r^2)^{3/2}}

where E0
is the permeability coefficient

The charged ring is replaced by a circular sheet of charge of radius a a surface charge density sigma. The ring can be divided into infinitessimally small rings of radius r and thicknes dr. Show that the electric field is given by E= \frac {sigma} {2*E0} * [1 - \frac {x} {(x^2 + a^2)^{1/2}}]

this is what I did:

charge on each ring:

2*pi*r*sigma*dr = A*sigma=Q

Electric field on each ring:

E = \frac {2*pi*sigma*dr*x*r} {4*pi*E0*(x^2 + r^2)^{3/2}} = \frac {sigma*dr*x*r} {2*E0*(x^2 + r^2)^{3/2}}

Integrate over ring:

\frac {sigma} {2*E0} * \int_{0}^{a} \frac {r} {(x^2 + r^2)^{3/2}} dx = \frac {sigma} {2*E0} * [-1/2*\frac{1} {(x^2+a^2)^{0.5}}] (from 0 to a) = \frac {sigma} {4*E0}* [1 - \frac {x} {(x^2+a^2)^{.5}}]

why is that factor 4 here (it's supposed to be 2)? Help's very much appreciated!
LaTeX
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like you missed a 'r' in the numerator in when you calculated Electric field on each ring:
 
Yes, sorry...missed to write that one in one line. However, I had it back in the integration the line below, so that it didn't affect the answer. It's now edited.

Does anyone have any idea about that factor 4?
 
Last edited:
The factor is supposed to be '2'. The derivative of r^2 is 2r. So if you take that into account, you will not get '4'.
 
That's exactly what I did and that caused all the trouble:

substitute: u= x^2 + a^2

so then you have to multiply by (1/2)...oh yeah...I see! I didn't multiply by two when I did the integration...

Oh dear! :cry:

Anyways - thank you so much!
:cool:
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top