Calculating Electric Field Using Gauss's Law for a Spherical Charge Distribution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chemmjr18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gauss's law Law
AI Thread Summary
A uniformly distributed charge of -30 μC within a spherical volume of 10.0 cm radius is analyzed to determine the electric field at distances of 2.0 cm, 5.0 cm, and 20.0 cm from the center. The electric fields calculated are -5.8E8 N/C at 2.0 cm, -1.35E7 N/C at 5.0 cm, and -6.7E6 N/C at 20.0 cm, with the latter using the total charge enclosed. The discussion clarifies that for distances greater than the sphere's radius, the total charge should be used, while within the sphere, a different approach is necessary. It emphasizes that Gauss's law can simplify electric field calculations for uniform charge distributions, provided the necessary symmetry exists. Understanding these principles is crucial for correctly applying Gauss's law in electrostatics.
Chemmjr18
Messages
51
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


A charge of -30 μC is distributed uniformly throughout a spherical volume of radius 10.0 cm. Determine the electric field due to this charge at a distance of (a) 2.0 cm, (b) 5.0 cm, and (c) 20.0 cm from the center of the sphere.

Homework Equations


Eq. (1): E⋅A=qenc
Eq. (2): qenc=q⋅(r/R)3

In qenc, r is the radius of my Gaussian surface and R is the radius of the actual sphere, 10.0 cm.

The Attempt at a Solution


(a) E= -5.8E8 N/C

(b) E= -1.35E7 N/C

(c) This is where I'm a bit stuck. If I let the radius of my Gaussian surface be 20.0 cm, then all of the actual sphere will be enclosed in my surface. Therefore, qenc would be -30 μC. However, if I use Eq. (2), I get that qenc is -2.4E-6 C which wouldn't really make any sense. Why would there be more charge than what's given? Using what I feel is the more rational option (i.e. letting qenc be -30 μC, I get the following answer:
E= -6.7E6 N/C

If I'd used Eq. (2) to find qenc, I would've gotten E= -5.4E7 N/C. This doesn't make any sense to me, since E is proportional to the inverse radius squared.

I have no way to see if this problem is correct, as it comes from a textbook that only shows answers to odd problems and this is an even problem. Thank for any help in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Chemmjr18 said:
If I let the radius of my Gaussian surface be 20.0 cm, then all of the actual sphere will be enclosed in my surface. Therefore, qenc would be -30 μC.
That would be correct.

Chemmjr18 said:
However, if I use Eq. (2),
Your Eq (2) is only valid within the volume that contains the charge. (For r <= R, the radius of the charged sphere.)
 
  • Like
Likes Chemmjr18
Thanks! I just to make sure I'm understanding this topic correctly. Anytime we have a uniform charge distribution, we can imaginarily encompass some or all of that charge distribution in a Gaussian shape and subsequently use Gauss's law to find the electric field at some point relative to the charge distribution? Is it really that simple, or am I just over-simplifying it? Also, if the charge distribution is not uniform (I think this would mean the E-field varies) we have to integrate φ=∫E(x,y)⋅cosθ⋅dA?
 
Chemmjr18 said:
Anytime we have a uniform charge distribution, we can imaginarily encompass some or all of that charge distribution in a Gaussian shape and subsequently use Gauss's law to find the electric field at some point relative to the charge distribution? Is it really that simple, or am I just over-simplifying it?
Yes, it really is that simple. Assuming you have the needed symmetry. If you do not have the symmetry, applying Gauss' law might involve integrations that you won't be able to simply calculate.
 
  • Like
Likes Chemmjr18
Got it. Thanks again!
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top