Potential by Assembling ChargesPotential difference between Earth's surface and 2 meters abovePotential of a uniformly charged hollow sphereElectric potential inside a conductorElectric field and electric scalar potential of two perpendicular wiresboundary condition of electrical fieldElectric Potential due to Sphere when cavity is at arbitrary positionSystem of point charges, Potential related questionIs this process to compute the electrostatic potential energy a valid one?Do charges move to the outer surface of a conductor to minimize the potential energy?Can Potential Energy be found by Energy Density?

I need a disease

How can I get a job without pushing my family's income into a higher tax bracket?

Should I mention being denied entry to UK due to a confusion in my Visa and Ticket bookings?

What does this wavy downward arrow preceding a piano chord mean?

Out of scope work duties and resignation

How to write a 12-bar blues melody

Should I just decline the job offer?

Why did Thanos need his ship to help him in the battle scene?

Why are UK Bank Holidays on Mondays?

Why wasn't the Night King naked in S08E03?

Are there any of the Children of the Forest left, or are they extinct?

How can I roleplay a follower-type character when I as a player have a leader-type personality?

How to use dependency injection and avoid temporal coupling?

Can there be a single technologically advanced nation, in a continent full of non-technologically advanced nations?

What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?

A factorization game

Have I damaged my car by attempting to reverse with hand/park brake up?

What is the closest airport to the center of the city it serves?

exec command in bash loop

What are the advantages of luxury car brands like Acura/Lexus over their sibling non-luxury brands Honda/Toyota?

Where can I go to avoid planes overhead?

How should I tell my manager I'm not paying for an optional after work event I'm not going to?

How to safely wipe a USB flash drive

In Stroustrup's example, what does this colon mean in `return 1 : 2`? It's not a label or ternary operator



Potential by Assembling Charges


Potential difference between Earth's surface and 2 meters abovePotential of a uniformly charged hollow sphereElectric potential inside a conductorElectric field and electric scalar potential of two perpendicular wiresboundary condition of electrical fieldElectric Potential due to Sphere when cavity is at arbitrary positionSystem of point charges, Potential related questionIs this process to compute the electrostatic potential energy a valid one?Do charges move to the outer surface of a conductor to minimize the potential energy?Can Potential Energy be found by Energy Density?













2












$begingroup$


For finding electric potential energy of a uniformly charged sphere, we can assemble the sphere by brining charges from infinity to that point. So to make a uniformly charged sphere of radius $R$ and total charge $Q$, at some instant, charge will be assembled up to a certain radius $x$.
In order to find potential of this sphere at the surface, why is my approach giving different answers?



Approach 1:



$$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$



$$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
Potential at the surface would be $$V = fracq4 pi epsilon_0 x = fracQ x^24 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



Approach 2:
$$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$
$$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
$$E = fracQ x4 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$ (From Gauss' Law)



Potential at the surface would be $$V = -intvecE cdot vecdx = -fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R^3 int_0^xxdx = -fracQ x^28 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



Why is the answer different in both the cases?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    2












    $begingroup$


    For finding electric potential energy of a uniformly charged sphere, we can assemble the sphere by brining charges from infinity to that point. So to make a uniformly charged sphere of radius $R$ and total charge $Q$, at some instant, charge will be assembled up to a certain radius $x$.
    In order to find potential of this sphere at the surface, why is my approach giving different answers?



    Approach 1:



    $$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$



    $$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
    Potential at the surface would be $$V = fracq4 pi epsilon_0 x = fracQ x^24 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



    Approach 2:
    $$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$
    $$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
    $$E = fracQ x4 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$ (From Gauss' Law)



    Potential at the surface would be $$V = -intvecE cdot vecdx = -fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R^3 int_0^xxdx = -fracQ x^28 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



    Why is the answer different in both the cases?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      For finding electric potential energy of a uniformly charged sphere, we can assemble the sphere by brining charges from infinity to that point. So to make a uniformly charged sphere of radius $R$ and total charge $Q$, at some instant, charge will be assembled up to a certain radius $x$.
      In order to find potential of this sphere at the surface, why is my approach giving different answers?



      Approach 1:



      $$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$



      $$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
      Potential at the surface would be $$V = fracq4 pi epsilon_0 x = fracQ x^24 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



      Approach 2:
      $$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$
      $$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
      $$E = fracQ x4 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$ (From Gauss' Law)



      Potential at the surface would be $$V = -intvecE cdot vecdx = -fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R^3 int_0^xxdx = -fracQ x^28 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



      Why is the answer different in both the cases?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      For finding electric potential energy of a uniformly charged sphere, we can assemble the sphere by brining charges from infinity to that point. So to make a uniformly charged sphere of radius $R$ and total charge $Q$, at some instant, charge will be assembled up to a certain radius $x$.
      In order to find potential of this sphere at the surface, why is my approach giving different answers?



      Approach 1:



      $$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$



      $$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
      Potential at the surface would be $$V = fracq4 pi epsilon_0 x = fracQ x^24 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



      Approach 2:
      $$rho = frac3Q4 pi R^3$$
      $$q = frac43 pi x^3 rho = Q fracx^3R^3$$
      $$E = fracQ x4 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$ (From Gauss' Law)



      Potential at the surface would be $$V = -intvecE cdot vecdx = -fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R^3 int_0^xxdx = -fracQ x^28 pi epsilon_0 R^3$$



      Why is the answer different in both the cases?







      electrostatics potential






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Apr 10 at 6:09







      Kushal T.

















      asked Apr 10 at 4:53









      Kushal T.Kushal T.

      777




      777




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Two cases described are completely different. In first case you find the true potential of the sphere by taking the charge from infinity to the surface of the sphere. In another case you take the charge from the middle of the sphere or the centre of the sphere to the surface of the sphere which is not the potential of the sphere surface. The potential of the sphere surface can be described as the work needed to push a positive charge from infinity to a to the surface or the energy stored to push the charge from the the surface towards the infinity so you can see in your second case you are not calculating the potential of the surface of the sphere. SHORT NOTE:- You can find the potential at any point by finding the difference of potential at that point and any other point whose the potential is zero now at the centre of the the sphere you don't have the potential as 0. See this:http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/d06_potential_spheres.html






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            2












            $begingroup$

            Approach 2 is wrong. You didn't take into account the corresponding limits for potential. Potential at centre of sphere is not zero!! The expression is V(x)-V(0) instead of V(x).... Find potential at surface by integrating for electric field outside sphere from X to infinity V(infinity)=0. So Then if you wish you can find V(x) by integrating from x=x to any general x=y(






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You're right, thanks. We can use the fact that potential difference between centre of sphere and infinity is $-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R$, and so the answer can be difference between my answer in approach two and the potential at the centre of the sphere, that is $$-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R - ( - fracQ8 pi epsilon_0 R) = boxed-fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R$$ and so we are done.
              $endgroup$
              – Kushal T.
              Apr 10 at 6:39



















            1












            $begingroup$

            The first thing to note is that the electric potential at a point is entirely different to the electric potential energy of an assembly of charges.

            I have assumed that you are finding the potential at a point and you have used two definitions of the zero of electric potential, one at infinity and the other at the centre of the charge distribution.



            Using Gauss's law the graph of electric field strength $E(x)$ against distance from the centre of the charge distribution $x$ looks something like this.



            enter image description here



            The area under the graph $int E,dx$ is related to the change in potential.



            In essence what you have done is found that areas $A$ and $B$ are not the same.



            PS You may well have met a similar graph with $E(r)$ negative and labelled $g(r)$ when discussing the gravitational field due to the earth and the gravitational field strength inside the Earth?






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "151"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471655%2fpotential-by-assembling-charges%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2












              $begingroup$

              Two cases described are completely different. In first case you find the true potential of the sphere by taking the charge from infinity to the surface of the sphere. In another case you take the charge from the middle of the sphere or the centre of the sphere to the surface of the sphere which is not the potential of the sphere surface. The potential of the sphere surface can be described as the work needed to push a positive charge from infinity to a to the surface or the energy stored to push the charge from the the surface towards the infinity so you can see in your second case you are not calculating the potential of the surface of the sphere. SHORT NOTE:- You can find the potential at any point by finding the difference of potential at that point and any other point whose the potential is zero now at the centre of the the sphere you don't have the potential as 0. See this:http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/d06_potential_spheres.html






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                2












                $begingroup$

                Two cases described are completely different. In first case you find the true potential of the sphere by taking the charge from infinity to the surface of the sphere. In another case you take the charge from the middle of the sphere or the centre of the sphere to the surface of the sphere which is not the potential of the sphere surface. The potential of the sphere surface can be described as the work needed to push a positive charge from infinity to a to the surface or the energy stored to push the charge from the the surface towards the infinity so you can see in your second case you are not calculating the potential of the surface of the sphere. SHORT NOTE:- You can find the potential at any point by finding the difference of potential at that point and any other point whose the potential is zero now at the centre of the the sphere you don't have the potential as 0. See this:http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/d06_potential_spheres.html






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  Two cases described are completely different. In first case you find the true potential of the sphere by taking the charge from infinity to the surface of the sphere. In another case you take the charge from the middle of the sphere or the centre of the sphere to the surface of the sphere which is not the potential of the sphere surface. The potential of the sphere surface can be described as the work needed to push a positive charge from infinity to a to the surface or the energy stored to push the charge from the the surface towards the infinity so you can see in your second case you are not calculating the potential of the surface of the sphere. SHORT NOTE:- You can find the potential at any point by finding the difference of potential at that point and any other point whose the potential is zero now at the centre of the the sphere you don't have the potential as 0. See this:http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/d06_potential_spheres.html






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Two cases described are completely different. In first case you find the true potential of the sphere by taking the charge from infinity to the surface of the sphere. In another case you take the charge from the middle of the sphere or the centre of the sphere to the surface of the sphere which is not the potential of the sphere surface. The potential of the sphere surface can be described as the work needed to push a positive charge from infinity to a to the surface or the energy stored to push the charge from the the surface towards the infinity so you can see in your second case you are not calculating the potential of the surface of the sphere. SHORT NOTE:- You can find the potential at any point by finding the difference of potential at that point and any other point whose the potential is zero now at the centre of the the sphere you don't have the potential as 0. See this:http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/d06_potential_spheres.html







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 10 at 5:47

























                  answered Apr 10 at 5:25









                  Nobody recognizeableNobody recognizeable

                  691617




                  691617





















                      2












                      $begingroup$

                      Approach 2 is wrong. You didn't take into account the corresponding limits for potential. Potential at centre of sphere is not zero!! The expression is V(x)-V(0) instead of V(x).... Find potential at surface by integrating for electric field outside sphere from X to infinity V(infinity)=0. So Then if you wish you can find V(x) by integrating from x=x to any general x=y(






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$








                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        You're right, thanks. We can use the fact that potential difference between centre of sphere and infinity is $-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R$, and so the answer can be difference between my answer in approach two and the potential at the centre of the sphere, that is $$-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R - ( - fracQ8 pi epsilon_0 R) = boxed-fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R$$ and so we are done.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Kushal T.
                        Apr 10 at 6:39
















                      2












                      $begingroup$

                      Approach 2 is wrong. You didn't take into account the corresponding limits for potential. Potential at centre of sphere is not zero!! The expression is V(x)-V(0) instead of V(x).... Find potential at surface by integrating for electric field outside sphere from X to infinity V(infinity)=0. So Then if you wish you can find V(x) by integrating from x=x to any general x=y(






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$








                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        You're right, thanks. We can use the fact that potential difference between centre of sphere and infinity is $-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R$, and so the answer can be difference between my answer in approach two and the potential at the centre of the sphere, that is $$-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R - ( - fracQ8 pi epsilon_0 R) = boxed-fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R$$ and so we are done.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Kushal T.
                        Apr 10 at 6:39














                      2












                      2








                      2





                      $begingroup$

                      Approach 2 is wrong. You didn't take into account the corresponding limits for potential. Potential at centre of sphere is not zero!! The expression is V(x)-V(0) instead of V(x).... Find potential at surface by integrating for electric field outside sphere from X to infinity V(infinity)=0. So Then if you wish you can find V(x) by integrating from x=x to any general x=y(






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      Approach 2 is wrong. You didn't take into account the corresponding limits for potential. Potential at centre of sphere is not zero!! The expression is V(x)-V(0) instead of V(x).... Find potential at surface by integrating for electric field outside sphere from X to infinity V(infinity)=0. So Then if you wish you can find V(x) by integrating from x=x to any general x=y(







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Apr 10 at 5:22









                      TojrahTojrah

                      23029




                      23029







                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        You're right, thanks. We can use the fact that potential difference between centre of sphere and infinity is $-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R$, and so the answer can be difference between my answer in approach two and the potential at the centre of the sphere, that is $$-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R - ( - fracQ8 pi epsilon_0 R) = boxed-fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R$$ and so we are done.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Kushal T.
                        Apr 10 at 6:39













                      • 1




                        $begingroup$
                        You're right, thanks. We can use the fact that potential difference between centre of sphere and infinity is $-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R$, and so the answer can be difference between my answer in approach two and the potential at the centre of the sphere, that is $$-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R - ( - fracQ8 pi epsilon_0 R) = boxed-fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R$$ and so we are done.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Kushal T.
                        Apr 10 at 6:39








                      1




                      1




                      $begingroup$
                      You're right, thanks. We can use the fact that potential difference between centre of sphere and infinity is $-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R$, and so the answer can be difference between my answer in approach two and the potential at the centre of the sphere, that is $$-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R - ( - fracQ8 pi epsilon_0 R) = boxed-fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R$$ and so we are done.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Kushal T.
                      Apr 10 at 6:39





                      $begingroup$
                      You're right, thanks. We can use the fact that potential difference between centre of sphere and infinity is $-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R$, and so the answer can be difference between my answer in approach two and the potential at the centre of the sphere, that is $$-frac3Q8 pi epsilon_0 R - ( - fracQ8 pi epsilon_0 R) = boxed-fracQ4 pi epsilon_0 R$$ and so we are done.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Kushal T.
                      Apr 10 at 6:39












                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      The first thing to note is that the electric potential at a point is entirely different to the electric potential energy of an assembly of charges.

                      I have assumed that you are finding the potential at a point and you have used two definitions of the zero of electric potential, one at infinity and the other at the centre of the charge distribution.



                      Using Gauss's law the graph of electric field strength $E(x)$ against distance from the centre of the charge distribution $x$ looks something like this.



                      enter image description here



                      The area under the graph $int E,dx$ is related to the change in potential.



                      In essence what you have done is found that areas $A$ and $B$ are not the same.



                      PS You may well have met a similar graph with $E(r)$ negative and labelled $g(r)$ when discussing the gravitational field due to the earth and the gravitational field strength inside the Earth?






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        The first thing to note is that the electric potential at a point is entirely different to the electric potential energy of an assembly of charges.

                        I have assumed that you are finding the potential at a point and you have used two definitions of the zero of electric potential, one at infinity and the other at the centre of the charge distribution.



                        Using Gauss's law the graph of electric field strength $E(x)$ against distance from the centre of the charge distribution $x$ looks something like this.



                        enter image description here



                        The area under the graph $int E,dx$ is related to the change in potential.



                        In essence what you have done is found that areas $A$ and $B$ are not the same.



                        PS You may well have met a similar graph with $E(r)$ negative and labelled $g(r)$ when discussing the gravitational field due to the earth and the gravitational field strength inside the Earth?






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          The first thing to note is that the electric potential at a point is entirely different to the electric potential energy of an assembly of charges.

                          I have assumed that you are finding the potential at a point and you have used two definitions of the zero of electric potential, one at infinity and the other at the centre of the charge distribution.



                          Using Gauss's law the graph of electric field strength $E(x)$ against distance from the centre of the charge distribution $x$ looks something like this.



                          enter image description here



                          The area under the graph $int E,dx$ is related to the change in potential.



                          In essence what you have done is found that areas $A$ and $B$ are not the same.



                          PS You may well have met a similar graph with $E(r)$ negative and labelled $g(r)$ when discussing the gravitational field due to the earth and the gravitational field strength inside the Earth?






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          The first thing to note is that the electric potential at a point is entirely different to the electric potential energy of an assembly of charges.

                          I have assumed that you are finding the potential at a point and you have used two definitions of the zero of electric potential, one at infinity and the other at the centre of the charge distribution.



                          Using Gauss's law the graph of electric field strength $E(x)$ against distance from the centre of the charge distribution $x$ looks something like this.



                          enter image description here



                          The area under the graph $int E,dx$ is related to the change in potential.



                          In essence what you have done is found that areas $A$ and $B$ are not the same.



                          PS You may well have met a similar graph with $E(r)$ negative and labelled $g(r)$ when discussing the gravitational field due to the earth and the gravitational field strength inside the Earth?







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Apr 10 at 9:41









                          FarcherFarcher

                          52.7k341112




                          52.7k341112



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471655%2fpotential-by-assembling-charges%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

                              Luettelo Yhdysvaltain laivaston lentotukialuksista Lähteet | Navigointivalikko

                              Gary (muusikko) Sisällysluettelo Historia | Rockin' High | Lähteet | Aiheesta muualla | NavigointivalikkoInfobox OKTuomas "Gary" Keskinen Ancaran kitaristiksiProjekti Rockin' High