Confused about the differential of a quantityWhat is the function $q$ in the definition of charge density?Does the electric field inside a sphere change if point charge isn't in center?Confused about a question about a dielectric sphereSolving the potential function for a Dielectric Sphere in a constant Electric FieldElectric field charged disc and L'Hôpital's ruleElectric field outside and inside of a sphereCan $E=fracq4piepsilon_0 r^2$ be directly derived from differential form of Maxwell equations?

How do I limit the scope of etoolbox environment patching?

Why is it possible to teach real numbers before even rigorously defining them?

What does it take to make metal music?

Undefined control sequence error after TeX Live update

Feasibility of keeping an Electrical Bike in poor (wet) storage conditions

Ethics questions concerning a referee assignment

Can Oko's Elk ability stop nonbasics from being affected by Magus of the Moon?

Drying clothes: windy but cold outside vs warm(ish) inside?

Someone called someone else with my phone number

Why most flyback converters / LED drivers operate under 100 kHz?

Complete the Pointer Set

Max of the reversed of two numbers

In the top five, I'm odd

How can I draw a graph that looks like this?

Single word for delaying an unpleasant task

Interpret numbers very literally

What is Trump's position on the whistle blower allegations? What does he mean by "witch hunt"?

Famous statistical wins and horror stories for teaching purposes

How to mine a star?

First attempt: Python Rock Paper Scissors

What is the difference between the Ancient Greek religion and the Ancient Roman religion?

Is the MCU origin for the "Avengers” name consistent with the comics?

Is it possible to generalize this mean value theorem for integrals?

How should a leader behave when they miss deadlines themselves?



Confused about the differential of a quantity


What is the function $q$ in the definition of charge density?Does the electric field inside a sphere change if point charge isn't in center?Confused about a question about a dielectric sphereSolving the potential function for a Dielectric Sphere in a constant Electric FieldElectric field charged disc and L'Hôpital's ruleElectric field outside and inside of a sphereCan $E=fracq4piepsilon_0 r^2$ be directly derived from differential form of Maxwell equations?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









6














$begingroup$


We know that by definition, the differential of a single variable function $f(x)$ is $$df(x)=fracdfdxdx$$
analogously, for a multi-variable function $f(x,y,z)$
$$df(x,y,z)=fracpartial fpartial xdx+fracpartial fpartial ydy+fracpartial fpartial zdz$$



Taking the work done by a force $W=W(x)$ as an example:
$$dW(x)=fracdWdxdx=Fdx tag1$$
but doesn't this assume straight away that W=Fx (or is this a common assumption when using differential?)



I've always seen the differential of the magnitude of an electric field E being written in the form $$dE=frac14pi epsilonfracdQr^2 tag2$$
if we use the similar assumption in (1) that
$$E(Q)=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$$
(which is the electric field outside of a spherically symmetric object with r=constant)



So is such an assumption correct? Or in other words can we use $E=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$ as a "starting point" of the differential to determine the electric field outside of ANY asymmetrical object (e.g. a half of a loop)? (just like $W=Fx$ as a starting point for $dW=Fdx$)










share|cite|improve this question












$endgroup$





















    6














    $begingroup$


    We know that by definition, the differential of a single variable function $f(x)$ is $$df(x)=fracdfdxdx$$
    analogously, for a multi-variable function $f(x,y,z)$
    $$df(x,y,z)=fracpartial fpartial xdx+fracpartial fpartial ydy+fracpartial fpartial zdz$$



    Taking the work done by a force $W=W(x)$ as an example:
    $$dW(x)=fracdWdxdx=Fdx tag1$$
    but doesn't this assume straight away that W=Fx (or is this a common assumption when using differential?)



    I've always seen the differential of the magnitude of an electric field E being written in the form $$dE=frac14pi epsilonfracdQr^2 tag2$$
    if we use the similar assumption in (1) that
    $$E(Q)=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$$
    (which is the electric field outside of a spherically symmetric object with r=constant)



    So is such an assumption correct? Or in other words can we use $E=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$ as a "starting point" of the differential to determine the electric field outside of ANY asymmetrical object (e.g. a half of a loop)? (just like $W=Fx$ as a starting point for $dW=Fdx$)










    share|cite|improve this question












    $endgroup$

















      6












      6








      6


      1



      $begingroup$


      We know that by definition, the differential of a single variable function $f(x)$ is $$df(x)=fracdfdxdx$$
      analogously, for a multi-variable function $f(x,y,z)$
      $$df(x,y,z)=fracpartial fpartial xdx+fracpartial fpartial ydy+fracpartial fpartial zdz$$



      Taking the work done by a force $W=W(x)$ as an example:
      $$dW(x)=fracdWdxdx=Fdx tag1$$
      but doesn't this assume straight away that W=Fx (or is this a common assumption when using differential?)



      I've always seen the differential of the magnitude of an electric field E being written in the form $$dE=frac14pi epsilonfracdQr^2 tag2$$
      if we use the similar assumption in (1) that
      $$E(Q)=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$$
      (which is the electric field outside of a spherically symmetric object with r=constant)



      So is such an assumption correct? Or in other words can we use $E=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$ as a "starting point" of the differential to determine the electric field outside of ANY asymmetrical object (e.g. a half of a loop)? (just like $W=Fx$ as a starting point for $dW=Fdx$)










      share|cite|improve this question












      $endgroup$




      We know that by definition, the differential of a single variable function $f(x)$ is $$df(x)=fracdfdxdx$$
      analogously, for a multi-variable function $f(x,y,z)$
      $$df(x,y,z)=fracpartial fpartial xdx+fracpartial fpartial ydy+fracpartial fpartial zdz$$



      Taking the work done by a force $W=W(x)$ as an example:
      $$dW(x)=fracdWdxdx=Fdx tag1$$
      but doesn't this assume straight away that W=Fx (or is this a common assumption when using differential?)



      I've always seen the differential of the magnitude of an electric field E being written in the form $$dE=frac14pi epsilonfracdQr^2 tag2$$
      if we use the similar assumption in (1) that
      $$E(Q)=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$$
      (which is the electric field outside of a spherically symmetric object with r=constant)



      So is such an assumption correct? Or in other words can we use $E=frac14pi epsilonfracQr^2$ as a "starting point" of the differential to determine the electric field outside of ANY asymmetrical object (e.g. a half of a loop)? (just like $W=Fx$ as a starting point for $dW=Fdx$)







      forces electrostatics electric-fields work differentiation






      share|cite|improve this question
















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jul 8 at 12:59









      Qmechanic

      116k14 gold badges230 silver badges1382 bronze badges




      116k14 gold badges230 silver badges1382 bronze badges










      asked Jul 8 at 3:37









      ContravarianceContravariance

      885 bronze badges




      885 bronze badges























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11
















          $begingroup$

          If you are working in one dimension, then you can say $text dW=Ftext dx$ means $W=Fx$ only if $F$ is not a function of $x$ (i.e. $F$ is constant). In general you will still need to perform an integral to get the total work done:



          $$W=inttext dW=int Ftext dx$$



          Notice how if $F$ does not depend on $x$ then you can pull $F$ out of the integral and get $W=Fx$.



          Or in more than one dimension you need to consider the component of $mathbf F$ along the displacement $text dmathbf x$:



          $$W=int text dW=intmathbf Fcdottext dmathbf x$$



          The same is true for your electric field case, assuming your expression is based on Coulomb's law (see the end of the below example for a better understanding of this qualification). You can say that $text dmathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdottext dqhat r/r^2$ yields $mathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdot Qhat r/r^2$ only if your integrand is constant over the region of space you are integrating over. In this case one usually replaces $text dq$ with either $lambda text dl$, $sigma text dA$, or $rho text dV$ for line, area, or volume charge densities respectively. The charge density as well as the distance vector $mathbf r$ from the charge $text dq$ to the point you are calculating the field at could vary over the integration region. In general you will have to perform an integral, just like in the work case.




          Your half loop example comes close to this through symmetry arguments. Let's assume the half loop of total charge $inttext dq=Q$ and of radius $R$ has a uniform line charge density $lambda$ and is part of a ring centered at the origin. Let's also say the half loop is in the first and fourth quadrants of the x-y plane, and we want the field at the origin. Then the field due to some element of charge $text dq=lambdatext dl$ on the loop is
          $$text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdatext dlr^2hat r=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rtext dthetar^2hat r$$



          where $theta$ is the polar angle that ranges from $-pi/2$ to $pi/2$ for our loop.



          Now, the distance from any charge element to the origin is always $r=R$, but the unit vector $hat r$ changes direction as we integrate over the half loop. However, we can use symmetry to argue that the net field will only have a horizontal component to the left. Therefore, we only need to consider the horizontal component of $hat r$, which is actually just $-costheta hat x$ (since for any $theta$, $hat r=-costheta hat x-sintheta hat y$).



          Therefore, we end up with
          $$text dmathbf E=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rcostheta dthetaR^2hat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x$$



          And now we have an integrand that is constant over the region of integration. Therefore:
          $$mathbf E=inttext dmathbf E=int_-1^1-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat xint_-1^1text d(sintheta)=-frac12piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat x$$



          Or, knowing that $lambda=Q/pi R$,
          $$mathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



          This result is pretty close to what you were proposing$^*$, and it is all because our integrand (technically the part of the integrand that didn't integrate to $0$) was constant along the region of integration. If we had a more complicated charge distribution, or if we tried to find the field at some other point in space, then we would most likely not end up with something that looks so simple and close to the field of a point charge (assuming we would even be able to write an actual solution out).



          Coming full-circle, I also want to point out that we could at this point technically write out
          $$text dmathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fractext dQR^2hat x$$
          however, this expression has a different physical interpretation as before. Earlier, the $text dmathbf E$ was the "little amount of field" provided by the charge element $text dq$. In this expression, we would instead be thinking of $text dmathbf E$ as the change in the electric field given a change $text dQ$ in total charge of the half-loop. This example just goes to show how you need physical knowledge to backup your understanding of your equations. When we started with $text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0cdotfractext dQhat rr^2$ we understood this equation to mean "This is Coulomb's law. To find the value of the total field I need to integrate over my charge distribution." In this new equation, we understand it to mean "I already know the total field at the center of a half-loop of charge. How does this field vary as I change the total charge of the uniform charge distribution?"



          In physics, our differentials have physical meaning, and that meaning then corresponds to how you should handle the equation to determine the values you are interested in.




          $^*$ We could even be clever and say that the total charge is actually $Q'=-pi Q/2$, where $Q$ now stands for some other unit of charge that is $-2/pi$ times the total charge. Then
          $$mathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



          and then we win.






          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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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%2f490375%2fconfused-about-the-differential-of-a-quantity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown


























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            11
















            $begingroup$

            If you are working in one dimension, then you can say $text dW=Ftext dx$ means $W=Fx$ only if $F$ is not a function of $x$ (i.e. $F$ is constant). In general you will still need to perform an integral to get the total work done:



            $$W=inttext dW=int Ftext dx$$



            Notice how if $F$ does not depend on $x$ then you can pull $F$ out of the integral and get $W=Fx$.



            Or in more than one dimension you need to consider the component of $mathbf F$ along the displacement $text dmathbf x$:



            $$W=int text dW=intmathbf Fcdottext dmathbf x$$



            The same is true for your electric field case, assuming your expression is based on Coulomb's law (see the end of the below example for a better understanding of this qualification). You can say that $text dmathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdottext dqhat r/r^2$ yields $mathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdot Qhat r/r^2$ only if your integrand is constant over the region of space you are integrating over. In this case one usually replaces $text dq$ with either $lambda text dl$, $sigma text dA$, or $rho text dV$ for line, area, or volume charge densities respectively. The charge density as well as the distance vector $mathbf r$ from the charge $text dq$ to the point you are calculating the field at could vary over the integration region. In general you will have to perform an integral, just like in the work case.




            Your half loop example comes close to this through symmetry arguments. Let's assume the half loop of total charge $inttext dq=Q$ and of radius $R$ has a uniform line charge density $lambda$ and is part of a ring centered at the origin. Let's also say the half loop is in the first and fourth quadrants of the x-y plane, and we want the field at the origin. Then the field due to some element of charge $text dq=lambdatext dl$ on the loop is
            $$text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdatext dlr^2hat r=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rtext dthetar^2hat r$$



            where $theta$ is the polar angle that ranges from $-pi/2$ to $pi/2$ for our loop.



            Now, the distance from any charge element to the origin is always $r=R$, but the unit vector $hat r$ changes direction as we integrate over the half loop. However, we can use symmetry to argue that the net field will only have a horizontal component to the left. Therefore, we only need to consider the horizontal component of $hat r$, which is actually just $-costheta hat x$ (since for any $theta$, $hat r=-costheta hat x-sintheta hat y$).



            Therefore, we end up with
            $$text dmathbf E=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rcostheta dthetaR^2hat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x$$



            And now we have an integrand that is constant over the region of integration. Therefore:
            $$mathbf E=inttext dmathbf E=int_-1^1-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat xint_-1^1text d(sintheta)=-frac12piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat x$$



            Or, knowing that $lambda=Q/pi R$,
            $$mathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



            This result is pretty close to what you were proposing$^*$, and it is all because our integrand (technically the part of the integrand that didn't integrate to $0$) was constant along the region of integration. If we had a more complicated charge distribution, or if we tried to find the field at some other point in space, then we would most likely not end up with something that looks so simple and close to the field of a point charge (assuming we would even be able to write an actual solution out).



            Coming full-circle, I also want to point out that we could at this point technically write out
            $$text dmathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fractext dQR^2hat x$$
            however, this expression has a different physical interpretation as before. Earlier, the $text dmathbf E$ was the "little amount of field" provided by the charge element $text dq$. In this expression, we would instead be thinking of $text dmathbf E$ as the change in the electric field given a change $text dQ$ in total charge of the half-loop. This example just goes to show how you need physical knowledge to backup your understanding of your equations. When we started with $text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0cdotfractext dQhat rr^2$ we understood this equation to mean "This is Coulomb's law. To find the value of the total field I need to integrate over my charge distribution." In this new equation, we understand it to mean "I already know the total field at the center of a half-loop of charge. How does this field vary as I change the total charge of the uniform charge distribution?"



            In physics, our differentials have physical meaning, and that meaning then corresponds to how you should handle the equation to determine the values you are interested in.




            $^*$ We could even be clever and say that the total charge is actually $Q'=-pi Q/2$, where $Q$ now stands for some other unit of charge that is $-2/pi$ times the total charge. Then
            $$mathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



            and then we win.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            $endgroup$



















              11
















              $begingroup$

              If you are working in one dimension, then you can say $text dW=Ftext dx$ means $W=Fx$ only if $F$ is not a function of $x$ (i.e. $F$ is constant). In general you will still need to perform an integral to get the total work done:



              $$W=inttext dW=int Ftext dx$$



              Notice how if $F$ does not depend on $x$ then you can pull $F$ out of the integral and get $W=Fx$.



              Or in more than one dimension you need to consider the component of $mathbf F$ along the displacement $text dmathbf x$:



              $$W=int text dW=intmathbf Fcdottext dmathbf x$$



              The same is true for your electric field case, assuming your expression is based on Coulomb's law (see the end of the below example for a better understanding of this qualification). You can say that $text dmathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdottext dqhat r/r^2$ yields $mathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdot Qhat r/r^2$ only if your integrand is constant over the region of space you are integrating over. In this case one usually replaces $text dq$ with either $lambda text dl$, $sigma text dA$, or $rho text dV$ for line, area, or volume charge densities respectively. The charge density as well as the distance vector $mathbf r$ from the charge $text dq$ to the point you are calculating the field at could vary over the integration region. In general you will have to perform an integral, just like in the work case.




              Your half loop example comes close to this through symmetry arguments. Let's assume the half loop of total charge $inttext dq=Q$ and of radius $R$ has a uniform line charge density $lambda$ and is part of a ring centered at the origin. Let's also say the half loop is in the first and fourth quadrants of the x-y plane, and we want the field at the origin. Then the field due to some element of charge $text dq=lambdatext dl$ on the loop is
              $$text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdatext dlr^2hat r=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rtext dthetar^2hat r$$



              where $theta$ is the polar angle that ranges from $-pi/2$ to $pi/2$ for our loop.



              Now, the distance from any charge element to the origin is always $r=R$, but the unit vector $hat r$ changes direction as we integrate over the half loop. However, we can use symmetry to argue that the net field will only have a horizontal component to the left. Therefore, we only need to consider the horizontal component of $hat r$, which is actually just $-costheta hat x$ (since for any $theta$, $hat r=-costheta hat x-sintheta hat y$).



              Therefore, we end up with
              $$text dmathbf E=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rcostheta dthetaR^2hat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x$$



              And now we have an integrand that is constant over the region of integration. Therefore:
              $$mathbf E=inttext dmathbf E=int_-1^1-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat xint_-1^1text d(sintheta)=-frac12piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat x$$



              Or, knowing that $lambda=Q/pi R$,
              $$mathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



              This result is pretty close to what you were proposing$^*$, and it is all because our integrand (technically the part of the integrand that didn't integrate to $0$) was constant along the region of integration. If we had a more complicated charge distribution, or if we tried to find the field at some other point in space, then we would most likely not end up with something that looks so simple and close to the field of a point charge (assuming we would even be able to write an actual solution out).



              Coming full-circle, I also want to point out that we could at this point technically write out
              $$text dmathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fractext dQR^2hat x$$
              however, this expression has a different physical interpretation as before. Earlier, the $text dmathbf E$ was the "little amount of field" provided by the charge element $text dq$. In this expression, we would instead be thinking of $text dmathbf E$ as the change in the electric field given a change $text dQ$ in total charge of the half-loop. This example just goes to show how you need physical knowledge to backup your understanding of your equations. When we started with $text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0cdotfractext dQhat rr^2$ we understood this equation to mean "This is Coulomb's law. To find the value of the total field I need to integrate over my charge distribution." In this new equation, we understand it to mean "I already know the total field at the center of a half-loop of charge. How does this field vary as I change the total charge of the uniform charge distribution?"



              In physics, our differentials have physical meaning, and that meaning then corresponds to how you should handle the equation to determine the values you are interested in.




              $^*$ We could even be clever and say that the total charge is actually $Q'=-pi Q/2$, where $Q$ now stands for some other unit of charge that is $-2/pi$ times the total charge. Then
              $$mathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



              and then we win.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              $endgroup$

















                11














                11










                11







                $begingroup$

                If you are working in one dimension, then you can say $text dW=Ftext dx$ means $W=Fx$ only if $F$ is not a function of $x$ (i.e. $F$ is constant). In general you will still need to perform an integral to get the total work done:



                $$W=inttext dW=int Ftext dx$$



                Notice how if $F$ does not depend on $x$ then you can pull $F$ out of the integral and get $W=Fx$.



                Or in more than one dimension you need to consider the component of $mathbf F$ along the displacement $text dmathbf x$:



                $$W=int text dW=intmathbf Fcdottext dmathbf x$$



                The same is true for your electric field case, assuming your expression is based on Coulomb's law (see the end of the below example for a better understanding of this qualification). You can say that $text dmathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdottext dqhat r/r^2$ yields $mathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdot Qhat r/r^2$ only if your integrand is constant over the region of space you are integrating over. In this case one usually replaces $text dq$ with either $lambda text dl$, $sigma text dA$, or $rho text dV$ for line, area, or volume charge densities respectively. The charge density as well as the distance vector $mathbf r$ from the charge $text dq$ to the point you are calculating the field at could vary over the integration region. In general you will have to perform an integral, just like in the work case.




                Your half loop example comes close to this through symmetry arguments. Let's assume the half loop of total charge $inttext dq=Q$ and of radius $R$ has a uniform line charge density $lambda$ and is part of a ring centered at the origin. Let's also say the half loop is in the first and fourth quadrants of the x-y plane, and we want the field at the origin. Then the field due to some element of charge $text dq=lambdatext dl$ on the loop is
                $$text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdatext dlr^2hat r=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rtext dthetar^2hat r$$



                where $theta$ is the polar angle that ranges from $-pi/2$ to $pi/2$ for our loop.



                Now, the distance from any charge element to the origin is always $r=R$, but the unit vector $hat r$ changes direction as we integrate over the half loop. However, we can use symmetry to argue that the net field will only have a horizontal component to the left. Therefore, we only need to consider the horizontal component of $hat r$, which is actually just $-costheta hat x$ (since for any $theta$, $hat r=-costheta hat x-sintheta hat y$).



                Therefore, we end up with
                $$text dmathbf E=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rcostheta dthetaR^2hat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x$$



                And now we have an integrand that is constant over the region of integration. Therefore:
                $$mathbf E=inttext dmathbf E=int_-1^1-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat xint_-1^1text d(sintheta)=-frac12piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat x$$



                Or, knowing that $lambda=Q/pi R$,
                $$mathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



                This result is pretty close to what you were proposing$^*$, and it is all because our integrand (technically the part of the integrand that didn't integrate to $0$) was constant along the region of integration. If we had a more complicated charge distribution, or if we tried to find the field at some other point in space, then we would most likely not end up with something that looks so simple and close to the field of a point charge (assuming we would even be able to write an actual solution out).



                Coming full-circle, I also want to point out that we could at this point technically write out
                $$text dmathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fractext dQR^2hat x$$
                however, this expression has a different physical interpretation as before. Earlier, the $text dmathbf E$ was the "little amount of field" provided by the charge element $text dq$. In this expression, we would instead be thinking of $text dmathbf E$ as the change in the electric field given a change $text dQ$ in total charge of the half-loop. This example just goes to show how you need physical knowledge to backup your understanding of your equations. When we started with $text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0cdotfractext dQhat rr^2$ we understood this equation to mean "This is Coulomb's law. To find the value of the total field I need to integrate over my charge distribution." In this new equation, we understand it to mean "I already know the total field at the center of a half-loop of charge. How does this field vary as I change the total charge of the uniform charge distribution?"



                In physics, our differentials have physical meaning, and that meaning then corresponds to how you should handle the equation to determine the values you are interested in.




                $^*$ We could even be clever and say that the total charge is actually $Q'=-pi Q/2$, where $Q$ now stands for some other unit of charge that is $-2/pi$ times the total charge. Then
                $$mathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



                and then we win.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                $endgroup$



                If you are working in one dimension, then you can say $text dW=Ftext dx$ means $W=Fx$ only if $F$ is not a function of $x$ (i.e. $F$ is constant). In general you will still need to perform an integral to get the total work done:



                $$W=inttext dW=int Ftext dx$$



                Notice how if $F$ does not depend on $x$ then you can pull $F$ out of the integral and get $W=Fx$.



                Or in more than one dimension you need to consider the component of $mathbf F$ along the displacement $text dmathbf x$:



                $$W=int text dW=intmathbf Fcdottext dmathbf x$$



                The same is true for your electric field case, assuming your expression is based on Coulomb's law (see the end of the below example for a better understanding of this qualification). You can say that $text dmathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdottext dqhat r/r^2$ yields $mathbf E=1/4piepsilon_0cdot Qhat r/r^2$ only if your integrand is constant over the region of space you are integrating over. In this case one usually replaces $text dq$ with either $lambda text dl$, $sigma text dA$, or $rho text dV$ for line, area, or volume charge densities respectively. The charge density as well as the distance vector $mathbf r$ from the charge $text dq$ to the point you are calculating the field at could vary over the integration region. In general you will have to perform an integral, just like in the work case.




                Your half loop example comes close to this through symmetry arguments. Let's assume the half loop of total charge $inttext dq=Q$ and of radius $R$ has a uniform line charge density $lambda$ and is part of a ring centered at the origin. Let's also say the half loop is in the first and fourth quadrants of the x-y plane, and we want the field at the origin. Then the field due to some element of charge $text dq=lambdatext dl$ on the loop is
                $$text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdatext dlr^2hat r=frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rtext dthetar^2hat r$$



                where $theta$ is the polar angle that ranges from $-pi/2$ to $pi/2$ for our loop.



                Now, the distance from any charge element to the origin is always $r=R$, but the unit vector $hat r$ changes direction as we integrate over the half loop. However, we can use symmetry to argue that the net field will only have a horizontal component to the left. Therefore, we only need to consider the horizontal component of $hat r$, which is actually just $-costheta hat x$ (since for any $theta$, $hat r=-costheta hat x-sintheta hat y$).



                Therefore, we end up with
                $$text dmathbf E=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda Rcostheta dthetaR^2hat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x$$



                And now we have an integrand that is constant over the region of integration. Therefore:
                $$mathbf E=inttext dmathbf E=int_-1^1-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambda text d(sintheta)Rhat x=-frac14piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat xint_-1^1text d(sintheta)=-frac12piepsilon_0fraclambdaRhat x$$



                Or, knowing that $lambda=Q/pi R$,
                $$mathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



                This result is pretty close to what you were proposing$^*$, and it is all because our integrand (technically the part of the integrand that didn't integrate to $0$) was constant along the region of integration. If we had a more complicated charge distribution, or if we tried to find the field at some other point in space, then we would most likely not end up with something that looks so simple and close to the field of a point charge (assuming we would even be able to write an actual solution out).



                Coming full-circle, I also want to point out that we could at this point technically write out
                $$text dmathbf E=-frac12pi^2epsilon_0fractext dQR^2hat x$$
                however, this expression has a different physical interpretation as before. Earlier, the $text dmathbf E$ was the "little amount of field" provided by the charge element $text dq$. In this expression, we would instead be thinking of $text dmathbf E$ as the change in the electric field given a change $text dQ$ in total charge of the half-loop. This example just goes to show how you need physical knowledge to backup your understanding of your equations. When we started with $text dmathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0cdotfractext dQhat rr^2$ we understood this equation to mean "This is Coulomb's law. To find the value of the total field I need to integrate over my charge distribution." In this new equation, we understand it to mean "I already know the total field at the center of a half-loop of charge. How does this field vary as I change the total charge of the uniform charge distribution?"



                In physics, our differentials have physical meaning, and that meaning then corresponds to how you should handle the equation to determine the values you are interested in.




                $^*$ We could even be clever and say that the total charge is actually $Q'=-pi Q/2$, where $Q$ now stands for some other unit of charge that is $-2/pi$ times the total charge. Then
                $$mathbf E=frac14piepsilon_0fracQR^2hat x$$



                and then we win.







                share|cite|improve this answer















                share|cite|improve this answer




                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Jul 8 at 17:56

























                answered Jul 8 at 3:54









                Aaron StevensAaron Stevens

                25.7k7 gold badges50 silver badges86 bronze badges




                25.7k7 gold badges50 silver badges86 bronze badges































                    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%2f490375%2fconfused-about-the-differential-of-a-quantity%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

                    Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                    Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                    Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?