Electric Field between two large oppositely charged metal plates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field between two oppositely charged metal plates using two methods. The first method, applying Gauss's Law, yields the correct electric field value by considering the flux through a Gaussian surface. The second method, which uses the superposition principle, incorrectly doubles the electric field by not isolating the effect of one plate. The key issue identified is that the superposition principle must account for the electric field from only one plate at a time, rather than both simultaneously. Understanding this distinction clarifies why the second method produces an incorrect result.
AlexChandler
Messages
281
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am trying to calculate the electric field between these two plates... and I am using two different methods to do so. One gives me the correct solution, and the other does not. I am curious as to why the second method is wrong.



Homework Equations


Gauss's Law Phi = Q/e0
E field near conductor = Charge density/ E0
Superposition of electric fields E=E1+E2


The Attempt at a Solution


The first method: Using gauss' law I am able to come up with the correct solution (I used a rectangular gaussian surface containing an area A2 of plate 1 reaching out halfway between the plates. The only face with flux through it is the one parallel to both plates located halfway between them.. The solution comes out as the charge density of the plates devided by the electric constant.
The second method: Using the superposition principle along with the equation for the electric field near a conductor I get twice the answer that I had calculated using Gauss' Law. I have attached a picture of my work in hope that it will help to illustrate my problem. Thanks and hope to hear back soon,
Alex
 

Attachments

  • Gauss.jpg
    Gauss.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 1,368
Physics news on Phys.org
The E-field at the surface of the conductor E=\sigma / \epsilon is already taken into account the presence of both plates. That means, what you get is E-field due to both plates on the surface on each plate, which is actually E-field between the plates.
However, in order to apply the superposition principle, you have to find the E-field due to ONE "plate", i.e. one layer of charges on one plate, assuming that the other layer is not there.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top