Can the electric field at the surface of a conductor be determined exactly?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the determination of the electric field at the surface of a conductor, particularly in the context of theoretical and practical considerations regarding surface charge and potential. Participants explore concepts related to electrostatics, including the behavior of electric fields in conductors and the implications of atomic structure and thermal motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the electric field at the surface of a conductor can be determined exactly, suggesting it might be analogous to a point charge at the center of a spherical conductor.
  • Another participant argues that specifying a location exactly on the surface is problematic due to atomic-level irregularities and the effects of thermal motion, which complicate the notion of a precise electric field at that point.
  • It is noted that for most practical applications, the discontinuity of the electric field at the surface is accepted, with the field outside an ideal spherical conductor being e/R^2 and zero inside.
  • A participant raises a question about the implications of the conductor being equipotential, suggesting that charges should not move within a uniform charge distribution due to the lack of potential difference.
  • Another response clarifies that the discussion of equipotentiality pertains to equilibrium conditions, while the original question relates to nonequilibrium situations introduced by perturbations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the ability to determine the electric field exactly at the surface of a conductor, with some emphasizing practical limitations and others focusing on theoretical models. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of equipotentiality and charge movement within conductors.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to atomic structure and thermal effects, which may influence the behavior of electric fields at the surface of conductors. The discussion also touches on the distinction between equilibrium and nonequilibrium states without resolving these complexities.

Cyrus
Messages
3,246
Reaction score
17
I have a question about the surface charge and the potential. My physics book states that the potential inside the conductor is the same at the surface. But the potential is just the electric field times the radial distance. Does this mean that it is possible to determine the electric field at a point EXACTLY on the surface of a conductor. I was not sure that was possible or not. If it is possible, would it simply be 1/4pi e R^2, which means that at exactly the surface of a conductor, the electric field is like a point charge at the center of the conducting sphere, R units away.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Things get a little dodgy when you talk about EXACTLY on the surface! On the one hand, real material at the atomic level is not smoothly and evenly distributed so you cannot specify the location exactly, in a strict sense. You can only do that within the average spacing between atoms or, at best, to the within the size of an atom. And we haven't even invoked Heisenberg yet!

On the other hand, all materials have finite temperature which means that there will be some jitter motion of the charges (electrons in particular) in effect smoothing the transition from "inside" to "outside." That scale is called the Debye length (thermal speed divided by plasma frequency).

For most applications people ignore those two aspects of surface charge and simply accept a discontinuity of the electric field "at the surface" of a conductor. In the case of the ideal spherical conductor the field at the surface (approaching it from the outside!) is e/R^2 but, of course, it's zero on the "inside."
 
Oh ok tide, thanks!
 
Hey tide, I have a question about the last time we talked. If it is metastable as you say, according to my physics text it is equipotential inside the conductor, then wouldent that suggest that the charge does not move if placed inside a uniform charge distribution. Because the potential is the same everywhere, the charge should not want to move to higher or lower potential, since there is none.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hey tide, I have a question about the last time we talked. If it is metastable as you say, according to my physics text it is equipotential inside the conductor, then wouldent that suggest that the charge does not move if placed inside a uniform charge distribution. Because the potential is the same everywhere, the charge should not want to move to higher or lower potential, since there is none.

Your textbook is referring to an equilibrium situation with no discussion of how that equilibrium is achieved. Your original question, relating to the stability of a state, is about an intrinsically nonequilibrium condition the moment you introduce a perturbation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
818
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K