0
$\begingroup$

For the infinite line of charge, we know the more we move away, dependence of E is 1/r.

To get to how we derive 1/r, I go with the following way:

  1. We only have perpendicular components. Hence change for each point of charge is the following $ \delta E_\perp = \frac{x^2-2d^2}{r^5} \delta d $ (d is perpendicular distance, x horizontal distance)

  2. Now, to get the total change from all the charge, I integrated it from -infinity to infinity which gave me the following result. $ -2\delta d/(d^2) $.

Since now, it has d^2 and not d in the denominator, it got me thinking, how I get d and not d^2. So I thought about the following logic:

I think what we do here is integration actually gives us $ -2𝛿𝑑/d^2 $. Then we can transform 𝛿𝑑 to d. 𝛿𝑑 is on the same axis as d, so it can definitely be expressed as 𝛿𝑑 = z * d. Then we got -2 * z * d / d^2 = -2 * z / d. Hence we got 1/d dependence and not 1/d^2.

Q1: is my assumption correct and if so, we're now left with z(some number), but isn't this wrong ? or this is what people mean with 1/r dependence ? They only mean what it's inversely proportional and that's it ?

Q2: Since dependence is 1/r and not 1/d. Do they mean 1/r in which r is presumed to be d(perpendicular) ?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ What is the point of your question? The field of an infinite line of charge is calculated explicitly in many introductory physics textbooks. If it's simply to find your error, you need to show your steps and a diagram with the variables used. Perpendicular and horizontal are not clearly defined without a schetch. $\endgroup$
    – nasu
    Commented Jun 13, 2023 at 19:44

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

to get the total change from all the charge, I integrated it from -infinity to infinity which gave me the following result. $βˆ’2\delta d/(d^2)$.

This is the correct result. That integral should be proportional to $d^{-2}$. I don't understand your reasoning when you bring in $z$, but let me explain what this integral represents. $$ \delta E_\perp(x,d,\delta d) = \frac{x^2 - 2d^2}{r^5}\delta d $$ is the change in $E_\perp$ from the point at $x$ when you move from $d$ to $d+\delta d$ from the line of charge. This is a simplification because there's no $k$ or charge. We've been omitting $k$ so far, so let's continue to do that, and assume it's 1. Let's do the same with the charge density $\lambda$. Still, you need a $\mathrm dx$ to convert $\lambda$ into charge. So let's integrate: $$ \delta E_\perp(d,\delta d) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{x^2 - 2d^2}{r^5}\delta d\mathrm dx = 2\delta d\int_0^\infty\frac{x^2 - 2d^2}{(x^2 + d^2)^{5/2}}\mathrm dx = 2\delta d\left(-\frac{1}{d^2}\right) = -\frac{2\delta d}{d^2} $$ This is saying that if you're at $d$ and take a small step away from the line, the field decreases by $\frac{2\delta d}{d^2}$. Note: decreases by. This is not saying that the electric field is $-\frac{2\delta d}{d^2}$. What if we looked at it a different way? $$ \delta E(d,\delta d) = -\frac{2\delta d}{d^2} \longrightarrow \frac{\delta E(d,\delta d)}{\delta d} = -\frac{2}{d^2} \longrightarrow \frac{\partial E}{\partial d} = -\frac{2}{d^2} $$ Now to confirm, we can take the standard equation for $E$ near an infinite line of charge: $$ E(d) = \frac{2}{d}\longrightarrow \frac{\partial E}{\partial d} = -\frac{2}{d^2} $$

This confirms our result. Integrating $\delta E(x)$ yields the same result as differentiating $E(d)$.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, now I get it. Thanks for coming back to this. One last question. When they say dependence of 1/r, I guess they mean r is the perpendicular component ? Because we got 1/d as well but for us, d is the perpendicular distance not the total distance. $\endgroup$
    – Giorgi
    Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 0:16
  • $\begingroup$ That's correct. they are using $r$ as the distance from the line of charge, which is the perpendicular distance $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ sorry Jacob. Which distance ? Perpendicular or total ? $\endgroup$
    – Giorgi
    Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 0:23
  • $\begingroup$ The "distance between a point and a line" refers to the shortest distance from the point to the line, which is the length of a segment perpendicular to the line $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the help for these 2 questions. But how calculated E like this actually applies in the real world. I know we use it for systems where distance is pretty close to the line of charge, hence our calculated result for infinity line of charge applies to real world line of charge(finite) as long ad distance where we want to know E is very close. It is like the difference between distance and length of line becomes infinite(but still wont be infinite in real world). Does there exist explanation(proof) of this ? If so, let me know and I’ll ask a new question. If not, then it is what it is. $\endgroup$
    – Giorgi
    Commented Jun 14, 2023 at 0:31
1
$\begingroup$

The dependence of field strength vs. distance depends on the geometry of the situation. For a point charge, the field propagates as an expanding sphere. Since the area of a sphere is $A=4 \pi r^2$, doubling the distance from a point source causes the associated field to "paint" 4 times the area, resulting in a $1/r^2$ relationship. For an infinite line charge, the field propagates as an expanding cylinder. Since the area of the sides of that cylinder is $A=2 \pi r L$, doubling the distance from an infinite line source causes the associated field to "paint" 2 times the area, resulting in a $1/r$ relationship. In other words, there is no need for higher level mathematics if this problem is viewed from a geometric standpoint.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer but I more importantly wanted to take its direction to my calculation way which is the same as physics.stackexchange.com/a/767605/366606 $\endgroup$
    – Giorgi
    Commented Jun 13, 2023 at 17:18
  • $\begingroup$ btw, your explanation does not explain one thing. In infinite plate of charge, we also got perpendicular components of E only so not sure with your explanation, how it would yield no dependence on r $\endgroup$
    – Giorgi
    Commented Jun 13, 2023 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Chemistry how does the "painted" area of an infinite plane of charge vary as you move away from it? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 13, 2023 at 18:08
0
$\begingroup$

With the line of charge along $\hat z$, linear density $\lambda$: What is $\vec E(\rho, \phi, z)$?

By symmetry: there is no $\phi$ nor $z$ dependence, the leaves only $ \vec r$ for $\vec E$, so:

$$ \vec E = E(r)\hat r $$

Then: there are two distance scales, $\lambda^{-1}$ and $||r||$, so:

$$ E(r) \propto r^a/\lambda^b $$

with $a-b = -2$ by dimensional analysis (DA). DA also gives $E \propto \lambda$ so $b=-1$, thus $a=-1$.

Thus:

$$ E(r) = a \frac 1 {4\pi}\frac{\lambda} r $$

Now figure out $a$....$a=1$ is for spheres.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking β€œPost Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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