Why do Gaussian Surfaces work?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the electric field due to an infinite conducting plane with a uniform surface charge density is constant and does not depend on the distance from the plane. This is because the infinite nature of the plane allows for a uniform field, unlike finite planes where the field strength diminishes with distance. While the approximation of an infinite plane is useful for practical calculations, it is important to recognize its limitations, as the field will eventually decrease and behave like that of a point charge at greater distances. The key takeaway is that the infinite plane model is valid only within a certain range where it remains a good approximation. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately applying Gauss's law in electrostatics.
JustStudying
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I was doing a problem:

An infinite conducting plane has a uniform surface charge density of 30 μC m‾².
Find the electric field strength 7.0 mm from the plane.

so we can use a gaussian surface (e.g a cylinder), and come to the conclusion that E = 30 μ / ε

but that got me thinking, doesn't the electric field strength depend on distance?

I understand that the electric field within the gaussian surface is 0, and that only the top of the gaussian surface we used (cylinder) would have flux passing through it.

But from my working, wouldn't this mean if we were finding the electric field strength at any distance from the conducting plane e.g 100 metres away , E would still be the same?

How does that even work?

Thanks for your time!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you're right, the electric field due to an INFINITE plane with constant charge distribution is a constant field that does not depend on the distance to the plane.
 
Last edited:
The key word here is "infinite", of course. There's no such thing as a truly infinite plane of charge. Even for a very very large plane, you can eventually get far enough away from it that the field it produces does fall off with distance. In fact, eventually you get far enough away that the plane "looks like" a point for all practical purposes, and from that distance outward the field falls off like 1/r2 just like for a point charge.

Nevertheless, the concept of an infinite plane is a useful approximation when you are "close enough" to a "large enough" plane of charge. You just have to be careful not to use the approximation outside the region where it is "good enough" for your purposes.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top