The charge distribution on a conductor for non-Coulombic potentials

David J. Grifthsa) and Daniel Z. Uvanovic

Department of Physics, Reed College, Portland, Oregon 97202

Received 11 July 2000; accepted 31 October 2000 We study the distribution of charge on a conductor for Yukawa (e r /r) and power-law (1/r n ) potentials. In the Yukawa case some charge goes to the surface, while the remainder distributes uniformly over the volume. In the power-law case no such general result is available, but we obtain the distribution for spheres, cylinders, and slabs, on the range 1 n 3. In the Coulomb limit (n 1) the charge all goes to the surface; at the other extreme (n 3) it distributes uniformly over the volume. 2001 American Association of Physics Teachers. DOI: 10.1119/1.1339279

I. INTRODUCTION In ordinary electrostatics, the charge on a solid conductor ows to the surface. This seems reasonable: Like charges repel, and they are simply getting as far away from one another as possible. On the other hand, it does seem a waste of all the empty space insidewhy doesnt some of the charge prefer to remain in the interior? In point of fact, it does, in other geometries: On two-dimensional conducting plates most, but not all of the charge goes to the rim,1 and on a one-dimensional wire the linear charge density is actually uniform.2 Even for three-dimensional conductors, moreover, exclusive accumulation at the surface is an artifact of the 1/r 2 nature of Coulombs law.3 Our purpose in this paper is to explore the latter observation. Specically, we ask how charge would distribute itself over a solid conductor if the Coulomb potential of a point charge q were replaced by Yukawas: V r 1 4
0

own. We shall take a conductor to be a material that has an unlimited6 supply of charge that is free to move in response to electric elds balanced, when neutral, by equal amounts of xed charge of the opposite sign . It follows that in the static case the net eld is zero inside a conductor, or equivalently that the potential is constant: E 0, V constant inside a conductor . 3 So the question becomes: How must charge arrange itself over a conductor in order to achieve this condition? We do not address here the subtle and elusive problem of uniqueness and stability.7 In the Yukawa case our conclusions are presumably unambiguous, for the Yukawa potential admits a standard uniqueness theorem. But it is conceivable that there exist other solutions for the power-law potential that is to say, charge distributions different from ours that also lead to E 0 inside the conductor. We regard this as unlikely except in certain anomalous cases , but we cannot absolutely exclude the possibility. II. YUKAWA POTENTIAL For the Yukawa potential 1 the electric eld of a point charge is E V 1 4
0

q e r

or by a power law: V r 1 4
0

q . rn

q r2

Of course, 0 need not have the same valueor even, in the second case, the same dimensionsas the ordinary vacuum permittivity; this is just a convenient way to express the constant. Note that as 0 and n1 our results should reduce to the standard ones. For spherical conductors this problem was solved by Spencer a decade ago,4 and our paper represents an extension of Spencers work. In Sec. II we provide the general solution to the Yukawa case: Some of the charge goes to the surface, and the remainder distributes itself uniformly over the volume. What fraction of the total goes to the surface depends on the shape of the conductor and also, of course, on the parameter , but, remarkably, the volume charge density is uniform regardless of the shape. As examples we treat the sphere, the innite cylinder, and the innite slab. In Sec. III we consider power-law potentials. In this case no general solution is available, but we again consider spheres, cylinders, and slabs. In Sec. IV we note that the results in Sec. III yield solutions to analogous problems for two- and one-dimensional conductors, including the vexed case of the conducting needle.5 Before we begin, however, it is appropriate to ask what it means to be a conductor, in this world that is not our
435 Am. J. Phys. 69 4 , April 2001 http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/

r e

r,

the analog to Gausss law is8 Eda

2

Vd

1
0

Q enc ,

and Poissons equation generalizes to

2

1
0

Inside a conductor, V(r) V 0 is constant, and it follows immediately that

0 2

V0

is also constant. This surprising conclusion is entirely independent of the shape of the conductor.9 A. Example 1: The slab Imagine rst an innite conducting slab, of thickness d, carrying a total charge per unit area inside and on the surface . We would like to know what fraction of the charge
2001 American Association of Physics Teachers 435

goes to the surface, and what fraction remains uniformly 0 distributed over the volume. Outside the slab where Poissons equation 6 says d 2V dz 2
2

where C 1 and C 2 are constants. Only the rst term is physically acceptable the second blows up at innity , and the constant C 1 is determined by the continuity of V at the surface: V0 , V r V0 R e r r R
r R

V 0,

where z runs perpendicular to the slab with z 0 at the center . The general solution is V z C 1e
z

r R.

17

C 2e z.

where C 1 and C 2 are constants. For positive z only the rst term is physically acceptable the second blows up at innity , and the constant C 1 is determined by the continuity of V at the surface; similar considerations apply for negative z. Thus V z V0 , V 0e z
z

To nd V 0 in terms of Q we apply Gausss law 5 , using a spherical Gaussian surface at innity; the rst term vanishes, and we are left with Q
0 2

2 0

r 2 V r dr 4 V 0 R

R2 3

R 1 . 18

d/2
d/2

d/2.

10

Evidently, V0 Q 4
0R 2

we apply Gausss law 5 , To nd V 0 in terms of using a pillbox of area A that straddles the slab and extends to innity in both directions: the surface integral vanishes E decreases exponentially , and we are left with A
0 2

R 2 /3

R 1

19

and hence 7
2

Q R 1

V z dz

AV 0

d 2 .

11

4 R

R /3

20

Evidently, V0
0

d 2

12

Multiplying by (4/3) R 3 we obtain the volume charge; subtracting this from Q we get the surface charge; in this case the dimensionless ratio is 1 1 R sphere . 21

and hence 7 , d 2 . 13

C. Example 3: The cylinder Imagine nally an innite solid conducting cylinder of radius S and net charge per unit length . Outside the cylinder, Poissons equation says dV 1 d s s ds ds
2

Multiplying by d we obtain the charge per unit area inside the slab; subtracting this from we get the total charge at the surface both sides . It is convenient to express the nal result in the form of the dimensionless ratio where is the charge per unit area on each surface over : 1 slab . 14

V 0,

22

where s is the radial coordinate. The general solution is V s C 1I 0 s C 2K 0 s , 23

As goes to zero, all the charge goes to the surface consistent with the Coulomb case ; as the charge is all in the interior.

where I 0 and K 0 are hyperbolic Bessel functions. But I 0 blows up10 as s , so C 1 0, while C 2 is determined by the continuity of V at the surface: V0 , V s V0 K0 K0 s S s , S s S. 24

B. Example 2: The sphere Suppose we put a total charge Q on a sphere of radius R. Again, we would like to know what fraction goes to the surface, and what fraction remains uniformly distributed over the volume. Outside the sphere, Poissons equation 6 says dV 1 d r2 dr r 2 dr C1 e r
2

we apply Gausss law 5 , To nd V 0 in terms of using a cylindrical Gaussian surface of length L and innite radius: the rst term vanishes, and we are left with11 L 2
2

V 0,

15
0

L
0

sV s ds K1 K0 S S

to which the general solution is V r

436
r

C2 r e , r

V 0 SL 16 Evidently,

S 2

25

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 4, April 2001

D. J. Grifths and D. Z. Uvanovic

436

V0
0

S 2

K1 K0

S S

26

Our problem is to determine such that V is constant inside the slab ( d/2 z d/2). Spencer13 calls attention to a useful formula due to Auer and Gardner:14
1 1

and hence 7 , K1 S 2 K0 S S . 27

1 t2

Cm t x t
1 2

dt K m C m x ,

34

Multiplying by S 2 we obtain the charge per unit length inside the cylinder; subtracting this from we get the charge per unit length on the surface. In this case the dimensionless ratio is K1 K0 S S cylinder . 28

where C m (x) are the Gegenbauer polynomials ( 1 x 1) and K m is a constant related to their normalization. In par(n 3)/2, ticular, C 0 (x) 1, so if we pick m 0, t 2z /d, and x 2z/d, Eq. 34 becomes
d/2 d/2

d2 4

n 3 /2

z z z

2 n 2

dz

K 0n

3 /2

35

Comparing Eqs. 14 , 21 , and 28 , we see that the fraction of the total charge that resides at the surface depends on the shape of the conductor, except in the limiting cases 0 all charge to the surface and all charge to the interior .

The left-hand side is precisely the form we require Eq. 33 , and the right-hand side is independent of z; this suggests that z C d2 4
n 3 /2

z2

36

III. POWER LAWS For the power law potential 2 the eld of a point charge is E V 1 4
0

where C is a constant. Certainly this (z) yields E 0 inside the slab; as mentioned in Sec. I, it is conceivable absent a uniqueness theorem that some other distribution might also work. To determine C we set the total charge per unit area equal to :
d/2

nq rn
1

, r

29 C

but the analogs to Gausss law and Poissons equation are not available.12 The general solution therefore eludes us, and we must resort to special cases. A. Example 1: The slab To begin with, let us calculate the eld at a height z above an innite plane with uniform charge density : E n z 2 0 s
0

d/2

d2 2 z 4

n 3 /2

dz C

n 1 2 n 1

dn

37 and conclude that z n 1 n 1 2 n d 2 d2 2 z 4

n 3 /2

38

s2 z2
z

n 2 /2

ds

0z

n 1

30

The corresponding potential is V z

z0

E dz.

31

For what range of n do we expect this result to hold? Auer and Gardner15 conne their attention to the range 1/2 0 which is to say, for us, 2 n 3 , but our own numeri1 cal studies indicate that it can be extended down to (n 1). We already know that n 2 is a special case, but it is easy to check, using the logarithmic potential in Eq. 32 , that 38 holds for this case too: z yields 1 d /4 z 2 1 2 0
d/2 2

We may as well choose z 0 0 for n 2, z 0 1 for n 2, and z0 for n 2; then

n 2

39

V z

n 2 z ln z
0

n 2 32 V z

z ln z z dz
d/2 d/2

n 2 . 4
0

ln z z d 2 /4 z

2 2

dz

Now imagine a slab of thickness d, carrying a charge density (z). Slicing it into planes, and applying Eq. 32 for n 2 well treat the case n 2 separately , the potential is V z
437

d/2

ln d/4 ,
0

40

1 n 2

d/2 d/2

z z z
n 2

dz .

33

which is indeed independent of z. Evidently, Eq. 38 is valid for 1 n 3. How about the end points? As n1 the Cou D. J. Grifths and D. Z. Uvanovic 437

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 4, April 2001

C. Example 3: The cylinder First, we nd the potential at a distance s from an innite line with uniform charge density : 1 4
0

V s

z2

n/2

dz

n 1 2 4
0

sn

. n/2 44

Using this, we determine the potential at a distance s from the axis of an innite cylindrical shell of radius s with uniform surface charge :18
Fig. 1. Charge density on a slab, for the power law potential 38 , using d 2, 2, and n 1.1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 2.8, and 3.0 reading up from the lowest curve .

s V s 4
0

n 1 2 n/2 n 1 2 n/2 s s
n 1

2 0

d 2ss cos

n 1 /2

lombic limit the charge density drops to zero within the slab, and goes over to a delta function at d/2: All the charge now resides at the surface.16 As n3 the charge density goes to a constant, and, although the potential within the slab is now innite, the limit would appear to be nonproblematic. In Fig. 1 we plot (z) for typical values of n between 1 and 3.

n 1 n 1 , ;1; s /s 2 2 n 1 n 1 , ;1; s/s 2 2

,
2

s s

1 s
n 2

s s . 45

B. Example 2: The sphere This is the case analyzed by Spencer,17 and it will sufce to summarize his results. The potential of a spherical shell with radius r and uniform surface charge density is 2 V r r r r n 2 r
2 2 n

Finally, we construct the potential at a distance s from the axis of an innite cylinder of radius S carrying a volume charge density (s): n 1 2 n/2
s

r r

2 n

n 2 V s 2
0

r r ln 4 0r r r

n 2. 41

s s
n 1

0 S s

n 1 n 1 , ;1; s /s 2 2 n 1 n 1 , ;1; s/s 2 2

s ds

It follows that the potential inside a solid sphere of radius R, with charge density (r), can be written in a form reminiscent of Eq. 33 : V r 2 1 n 2 r
R R

1 s
n

F 2

s ds

. 46

r r r

r
n 2

dr

n 2

42

again, we must handle the case n 2 separately . Our problem is to determine (r) such that V is independent of r; it can be solved in the same way as before, only using C 1 (x) 2 x in the Auer/Gardner formula. The result is r 2nQ 2R
n

As always, our problem is to nd (s) such that V(s) is independent of s. We have not discovered a way to do this deductively. However, our experience with the slab 38 and the sphere 43 suggests that we try the form s n 1 2 S
n 1

n 1 n 1 2

n 3 /2

43

S2 s2

n 3 /2

47

where Q is the total charge. This holds for the range 1 n 3 including the special case n 2, which can be checked by hand ; as n1, (r) goes to zero inside and a delta function at the surface the Coulomb case , whereas for n 3 the charge distributes itself uniformly over the volume of the sphere. The functional form 43 is identical to that for the slab 38 , and Fig. 1 with the obvious modications shows the charge distribution for various values of n.
438 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 4, April 2001

where is the total charge per unit length , and exhaustive numerical checking using MATHEMATICA conrms that this does indeed lead to a uniform potential inside the cylinder, for 1 n 3. D. The special case n3 When n 1 the charge ows to the surface: thats no surprise, of courseits the familiar Coulomb case. What is surprising is the other limit, n 3, for which in each example
D. J. Grifths and D. Z. Uvanovic 438

the charge distributes itself uniformly over the volume. Is this perhaps a general result, independent of the shape of the ), and assume is conductor? It is. For if we take n (3 constant, the potential inside a conductor is V r 1 4
0 3

n 3 in Sec. III , conrmingfrom yet another perspectivethe emerging consensus that the electrostatic charge density on a conducting needle is constant.21 B. The ribbon Imagine an innite conducting ribbon of width d, stretching along the y axis and lying in the xy plane. We can think of it as made up of a collection of innite parallel wires, each carrying a uniform line charge (x)dx. The potential at a point x on the ribbon can be obtained from Eq. 44 : n 1 2 4
0 d/2 d/2

r r

d 3r ,

48

and we need only show that this integral is independent of r in the limit 0. We dare not set 0 at the start, because the integral blows up. Calculating the divergence in spherical coordinates, we nd that 1 r3 and hence 1 r r
3

"

r r2

49

V x

x x x
n 1

n/2

dx .

55

"

r r r r
3

50

Our problem is to determine (x) such that V is independent of x. This is again mathematically identical to the slab Eq. 33 , with nn 1, and we read off the solution 38 : x n n/2
2 n 1

Therefore invoking the divergence theorem V r 1 4

0

d2 2 x 4

n 2 /2

56

r r r r
3

"da .

51

The integral itself is now perfectly nite as 0, and in fact Gausss law tells us that its value is 4 , so V r
0

where is the total charge per unit length on the ribbon. This time the formula is valid for 0 n 2, and the limiting cases are n 0 all charge to the edgesthough since E 0 its not clear what we are to make of this one and n 2 uniform distribution over the surface . For the Coulomb case (n 1) we recover the standard result22 x . 57

52 qed19 d 2 /4 x2

which is indeed independent of r.

IV. ANALOGS IN ONE AND TWO DIMENSIONS Finally, we exploit our results from Sec. III to solve some related problems involving one- and two-dimensional conductors. A. The needle Consider an innitesimally thin needle of length d carrying charge density (z). The potential at a point z on the axis is V z 1 4
0 d/2 d/2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank N. A. Wheeler and O. Bonm for many illuminating discussions.

Electronic mail: grifth@reed.edu R. Friedberg, The electrostatics and magnetostatics of a conducting disk, Am. J. Phys. 61, 10841096 1993 . 2 J. D. Jackson, Charge density on thin straight wire, revisited, Am. J. Phys. 68, 789799 2000 . 3 Ross L. Spencer, If Coulombs law were not inverse square: The charge distribution inside a solid conducting sphere, Am. J. Phys. 58, 385390 1990 . 4 Reference 3. 5 David J. Grifths and Ye Li, Charge density on a conducting needle, Am. J. Phys. 64, 706714 1996 . See also Ref. 2. 6 By assuming an unlimited supply of free charge we avoid an awkward asymmetry that affects even the Coulomb case: If the excess charge is positive same sign as the xed charge , then the surface charge necessarily has a nite thickness, since the maximum positive charge density is determined by the spacing between atoms; but if the excess charge is negative it accumulates as a skin of in principle innitesimal thickness. Spencer Ref. 3 treats the two cases separately, but we shall accept the usual idealization and handle the two signs symmetrically. 7 Ronald Shaw, Symmetry, uniqueness, and the Coulomb law of force, Am. J. Phys. 33, 300305 1965 ; D. F. Bartlett and Y. Su, What potentials permit a uniqueness theorem?, ibid. 62, 683686 1994 . 8 David J. Grifths, Introduction to Electrodynamics PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999 , 3rd ed., Problem 2.49. 9 Spencer Ref. 3 obtained this result for a spherical conductor, by an entirely different route, and he noted that it could also be obtained from Eq. 6 , but he did not generalize the result to arbitrary shapes. 10 M. Abromowitz and Irene A. Stegun, eds., Handbook of Mathematical Functions Dover, New York, 1964 , p. 374. 11 I. S. Gradsteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series, and Products Academic, San Diego, CA, 1994 , 5th ed., 5.56.2 and 8.407.
1 a

z z z
n

dz .

53

If the needle is a conductor, then (z) must be such that V is independent of z. This is mathematically identical to the problem of the slab Eq. 33 , only with nn 2, and we can simply quote the solution 38 : z Q n 1 d2 2 z n 1 2 n 4 d 2
n 1 /2

54

where Q is the total charge on the needle. This time the formula is valid for 1 n 1.20 In the limit n 1 all the charge goes to the ends. This makes sense: The electric eld of a point charge is a constant, so a charge placed anywhere on the wire will be repelled toward the end with the lesser charge. In the limit n 1 the Coulomb case charge distributes itself uniformly along the length of the needle this corresponds to the case
439 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 4, April 2001

D. J. Grifths and D. Z. Uvanovic

439

12

Landy suggests a way to generalize Gausss law by going to an (n 1)-dimensional space, but although we have used his formula to check some of our results, we have not found a way to exploit it systematically. See Steven B. Landy, Gauss law for noninverse square forces, Am. J. Phys. 64, 816818 1996 . 13 Reference 3. 14 P. L. Auer and C. S. Gardner, Note on singular integral equations of the KirkwoodRiseman type, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 15451546 1955 . 15 Reference 14. 16 A careful treatment of Eq. 38 in this limit is provided by D. Z. Uvanovic, How would charge distribute inside a conductor if Coulombs law were not inverse-square?, Reed College senior thesis, 2000. 17 Reference 3. 18 Reference 11, 3.665. 19 One is tempted to conjecture that should remain constant for all n 3, because physically, the larger n becomes, the more dominant are the

nearby charges, and hence the greater the tendency toward a uniform distribution. By the same token, one might suppose that for n 1 the charge should remain on the surface, because the distant charges are now dominant. But Spencers analysis of the sphere Ref. 3 indicates that there is no unique stable solution for n 1, a conclusion also reached on more general grounds by Shaw Ref. 7 . In fact, it is not clear that the problem is even well-dened outside the range 1 n 3. 20 The case n 0 is anomalous, for according to Eq. 53 V(z) is independent of z regardless of the functional form of (z), and the solution suggested by Eq. 54 is clearly not unique. 21 See Ref. 2, and articles cited there. The idea of regularizing the integral by modifying the power in Coulombs law and then taking the limit is due to N. A. Wheeler, who proved by this means that the charge density is constant; see Construction and physical application of the fractional calculus, Reed College, unpublished report, 1997. 22 Reference 5.

THE BERLIN COLLOQUIUM In the late 1920s and early 1930s, at the zenith of his professional life, Nernst was the director of the Physics Institute at the Berlin University. At the time, many students who were to become eminent representatives of the new quantum physics saw Nernst as one of the grand old men of the eld. It was in his institute, formerly directed by W. Rubens, that the famed physics colloquia, inaugurated by Gustav Magnus . . . , took place every Friday afternoon. Regardless of the presentations, the main performance was provided by the audience. The front rows were occupied by Einstein, Max von Laue, Planck, Erwin Schrodinger, Gustav Hertz, and Nernst, joined by Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and many younger luminaries.
Diane Kormos Barkan, Walther Nernst and the Transition to Modern Physical Science Cambridge U.P., New York, 1999 , p. 25.

440

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 4, April 2001

D. J. Grifths and D. Z. Uvanovic

440