Two point charges of same charge
q
are placed inside a
1
m
square. Randomly two points were chosen and simultaneously placed. Find the force between them.
If your answer comes in the form of
F
=
4
π
ϵ
0
α
q
2
Type you answer as
α
=
?
The problem is bit original.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
@Karan Chatrath Thanks for the solution. I just upvoted. You are correct. I hope you like this problem. I have taken this problem from here https://youtu.be/i4VqXRRXi68
Log in to reply
No, I don't think I am correct. This is because I cannot help but wonder whether the average of the square of the reciprocal of the distance is the same as the reciprocal of the average distance squared. These two don't necessarily have to be the same. If they are the same, it must be proved.
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath BTW what is the meaning of computationally expensive??
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – By that, I meant that to obtain a numerical solution of the integral with reasonable accuracy would take several hours, at least.
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath – @Karan Chatrath OMG! It takes hours I thought that It takes nearly 1 second.
@Steven Chase I request you to share your thoughts on the solution.
Log in to reply
I tried two approaches: First a Monte Carlo simulation averaging the results. It turned out that the quasi-singularities (when the random points were very close together) dominated the results. So that was useless. Then I tried your second integral in the wolfram quadruple integrator, and it couldn't give me an answer. So I gave up at that point. The idea of finding the average distance using a quadruple integral may be valid, but it wasn't my first thought. Basically, I wasn't willing to work too hard on this, given the singularities in the integrand.
Log in to reply
I agree. I did not do a Monte Carlo Simulation but I did observe that there are several potential singularities. I managed to modify my code to circumvent them, but the execution takes forever.
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath – By the way, the average of x 2 1 is not equal to the reciprocal of the average of x 2 . You can pick the numbers 1 , 2 , 3 and compute those two quantities to verify this.
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase – @Steven Chase electromechanics part 3 are you posting it today?
@Karan Chatrath – @Karan Chatrath what does it mean“execution takes forever”.matlab answer aaya hi nhi aakhri tak?
Although it really is the second integral that is for sure correct.
Log in to reply
Yes, I think so too. The average distance approach stays valid as long as the following can be proved to be true. I have not figured out a way to proceed with it. Seems like an uphill task
∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ( D 2 1 ) d x 1 d y 1 d x 2 d y 2 = D a v 2 1
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath – It is easier to prove it false by counter-example
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase – I have one in mind. Consider any point on a unit square. To compute its average distance from the origin:
D a v = ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 x 2 + y 2 d y d x ≈ 0 . 7 6 5 2
Now, consider computing the average of the square of the reciprocal of the distance. This leads to:
I = ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 x 2 + y 2 d x d y
The integral I does not converge.
Does this serve as an adequate counter example?
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath – You could use integrals to illustrate it. But we can use simple numbers to disprove the general principle. Say we choose the numbers 1 and 2 .
Av ( x 2 1 ) = Av ( x 2 ) 1 2 1 / 1 + 1 / 4 = ( 1 + 4 ) / 2 1
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase – This confirms my speculation about the posted solution being incorrect. This also means that the answer ≈ 3 . 6 7 8 is not right.
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath – I think so. It's a subtle distinction, but it undermines the approach used to solve. We could consider a version of this with two squares: the first particle being in the square at z = 0 and the second particle being in the square at z = 1 . Then we could solve without any conceptual problems.
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase – Yes, that is a good idea. I think we'd still wind up with a quadruple integral but at least the issue of singularities would be circumvented.
@Steven Chase – @Steven Chase Good Morning sir, waiting and excited for R L C
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – It's up now
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase – @Steven Chase Thank you so much.
@Steven Chase – @Steven Chase please post more questions like 2nd order R L C
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – https://brilliant.org/problems/damped-vibrations/?ref_id=1566931
Second-order dynamics.
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath – @Karan Chatrath I know this problem. Ye aapne bahut pehle post kiya tha. Mujhe uss time ye nhi aata tha iss liye maine sidha solution dekh liya that. But if you post such problems now. I will definitely post solutions. Thanks
@A Former Brilliant Member – You can also type "RLC" in the Brilliant search bar and go to the "problems" tab, and you will find many such problems
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase – @Steven Chase in previous time I have seen question so I just see the solution. But I have solved them also. But can't able to post solution because at that time I doesn't know how to solve this types of problems. But I know now very well. So that I can post the solution and help others also .
@Steven Chase – @Steven Chase Can you post a mechanics damped oscillatiion problem?
@Karan Chatrath Sir my problem Spiral orbit has been reported by you many days ago. Can you please delete your report
Log in to reply
In this problem (spiral orbit), mention that ∣ p ∣ > ∣ q ∣ in your problem statement.
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath ( I have updated that) can post a problem like this https://brilliant.org/problems/damped-vibrations/?ref_id=1566931. Bhaiya 1 year pehle ye problem merse solve nhi hua isliye maine solution dekh liya. Isliye ab mai solution nhi daal sakta . Ab aap aisa question daaloge to mai sol. jarur daaluga. Can you post it today??
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – I have posted one now.
@Karan Chatrath please solve flux through triangle problem analytically
@Karan Chatrath please remove for this problem also https://brilliant.org/problems/story-of-chrome-and-flux/. Thanks in advance
@Karan Chatrath Are you solving Electric field and Plate? Please post it's solution.
Log in to reply
I will solve and post later.
Log in to reply
@Karan Chatrath Ok. BTW that problem can be solved in 10 sec.
I don't understand why did you delete the comments. All you had to do was tell me if the answer was correct or not and show your attempt. I think it is a fair ask. If you want help, show why you need it.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Consider two points on the square: ( x 1 , y 1 ) and ( x 2 , y 2 ) . The distance between the points are:
D = ( x 2 − x 1 ) 2 + ( y 2 − y 1 ) 2 Average distance is:
D a v = ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ( ( x 2 − x 1 ) 2 + ( y 2 − y 1 ) 2 ) d x 1 d y 1 d x 2 d y 2
This is difficult to solve numerically. Fortunately, this problem of average distance is a popular one and its solution is available on the internet.
D a v ≈ 0 . 5 2 1 4
Using this expected distance, the expected force can be computed.
F = 4 π ϵ o D a v 2 q 2
∴ F ≈ 4 π ϵ o 3 . 6 7 8 q 2
I am not sure if this method is correct, however. This approach was a trial and it turned out to be correct. The rigorous way of solving for the expected force is:
F = 4 π ϵ o q 2 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ( D 2 1 ) d x 1 d y 1 d x 2 d y 2
I do not know if this method gives the same result as solving a quadruple integral is computationally expensive. There might be a way to get a closed-form solution, but I have not attempted to solve the integral exactly as yet. I am sceptical about the correctness of my solution.
Is it correct if the following can be proved:
∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ∫ 0 1 ( D 2 1 ) d x 1 d y 1 d x 2 d y 2 = D a v 2 1
And I am not sure how to do this.