0
$\begingroup$

In chapter 1 of Alonso & Finn's Fields and Waves, the electric field and electric potential of a long, uniformly charged wire are calculated.

enter image description here

As you can see, $s/r=\sin\alpha$, $R/r=\cos\alpha$ and $s/R=\tan\alpha$. The electric field due to the infinitesimal bit of wire $\text{d}s$ is $\text{d}E=\frac{\lambda\text{ d}s}{4\pi\varepsilon_0r^2}$, and since the vertical components of elements $\text{d}s$ at opposite sides of $O$ will cancel out, what remains is $\text{d}E\cos\alpha$.

The authors argument that integrating from $0$ to $\pi/2$ and multiplying by $2$ will give a fair approximation of the field in the case of a long wire, or perhaps a short distance $R$ from the wire.

We get that $$E=2\int_0^{\pi/2}\text{d}E\cos\alpha=2\int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{\lambda\cos\alpha\text{ d}s}{4\pi\varepsilon_0r^2}.$$

Now, things get a little disturbing for me. The authors substitute $\text{d}s=R\cos^{-2}\alpha\text{ d}\alpha$ and $r^2=R^2/\cos^2\alpha$ to reduce the integral to $$E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0R}\int_0^{\pi/2}\cos\alpha\text{ d}\alpha=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0R}.$$

I'm okay with that (more importantly, the result agrees with a similar calculation using Gauss's law), but what if we chose $\text{d}s=r\cos\alpha\text{ d}\alpha$? We get $$E=2\int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{\lambda\cos\alpha\text{ d}s}{4\pi\varepsilon_0r^2}=2\int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{\lambda\cos\alpha r\cos\alpha\text{ d}\alpha}{4\pi\varepsilon_0r^2}=2\int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{\lambda\cos^2\alpha \text{ d}\alpha}{4\pi\varepsilon_0r},$$ which, when substituting $r=R/\cos\alpha$, gives $$E=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\varepsilon_0R}\int_0^{\pi/2}\cos^3\alpha \text{ d}\alpha=\frac{\lambda}{3\pi\varepsilon_0R}.$$ Did I work this out wrongly, or is there an inconsistency in the authors' arguments here?

(Shit - missed out on something important! Small $r$ is a function of $\alpha$, so my expression for $\text{d}s$ is wrong. :( )

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

It is correct that $s = r \sin \alpha$, but since $r$ depends on $\alpha$ it does not follow that $ds = r \cos \alpha$. Instead , you have $ds = \left ( r \cos \alpha + dr/d\alpha \sin \alpha \right) d\alpha $. If you work that out you will recover the textbook substitution.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.