Conductor thought experiment: Speed of E field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a thought experiment regarding the finite speed of electric field lines in the context of a spherical conductor with a positive charge inside a cavity. Participants explore the implications of this scenario on energy conservation and the behavior of electric fields, primarily from a classical physics perspective.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the electric field from a charge Q inside a conductor propagates and does work on the conductor, suggesting that this implies a finite speed of the electric field.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of energy conservation in the described scenario, arguing that the energy density of the field increases as it propagates, which contradicts the idea of energy conservation without additional input.
  • Some participants assert that field lines terminating inside the conductor do not violate conservation principles, and that changes in field energy can be accounted for by the work done on the conductor.
  • There is a discussion about Poynting's theorem and its implications for energy flow and conservation in the context of the electric field and the conductor.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the treatment of time-varying fields and suggests that their understanding is not yet at a level to fully engage with the mathematical aspects involved.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for a mathematical approach to determine whether the energy in the field remains constant over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conservation of energy in the context of the electric field and the conductor. There is no consensus on whether the assumptions made in the thought experiment are valid or whether energy conservation holds in the described scenario.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of time-varying fields and the mathematical treatment of the energy associated with electric fields. Some arguments rely on classical interpretations that may not fully account for the complexities of electromagnetic theory.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in classical electromagnetism, energy conservation in electric fields, and the implications of thought experiments in physics may find this discussion relevant.

FallenApple
Messages
564
Reaction score
61
nw0744-n.gif


I wonder if my thought experiment in proving the finite speed of field lines is valid.

Say a spherical conductor has a cavity with positive charge Q inside as shown.
say that the beginning of the universe starts at time 0, where there is the charge Q in the cavity and that the conductor is not polarized. We are speaking in a classical perspective, so it makes sense.

Also, assume that the charge Q and the conductor are the only things in the entire universe.

In the time at the beginning of the universe, there is a field due Q outwards, existing everywhere in the universe at once simultaneously, and no field at all due to the conductor. Then afterwards Q does work to polarize the conductor.If we consider the system as the cavity’s Q and the conductor, then before the induction, the total field energy in the universe is soley to Q. After that brief moment, the total field energy of the universe should still the same ,since the electric force is a conservative force.

But we know that the energy is not conserved since the field lines are now terminated inside the conductor, leaving lesser length of field lines total in universe. Hence, less energy compared to time 0, since there was no gap.

This concludes that the original assumption that the field lines are existing simulataneously every where at once at the inception of time is wrong.

Therefore E has a finite speed.

So at the beginning of time, as E field from the inner cavity charge moves outwards to the conductor, it does work on the conductor as the E field itself is propagating at the same time. Hence there would be no contradiction. As the E field flows into the conductor, it does positive work on the negative charges in the conductor and positive work to the positive charges. So energy was put into creating the speration and therefore, the loss of the red field lines(inside the picture) was the price to pay. And hence, energy is conserved.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
FallenApple said:
And hence, energy is conserved
Except that energy is not conserved in the field as you have described it. The energy density of the field is proportional to the square of the field. If the field just naively propagates to fill an increasing volume at the same energy density then it contains an ever increasing amount of energy without any input.

Instead of trying to invent a propagation speed for the electric field you should study the known propagation speed of the electromagnetic field.
 
FallenApple said:
If we consider the system as the cavity’s Q and the conductor, then before the induction, the total field energy in the universe is soley to Q. After that brief moment, the total field energy of the universe should still the same ,since the electric force is a conservative force.

But we know that is not true since the field lines are now terminated inside the conductor.
This section is also not correct. There is nothing wrong with field lines terminating on the inside of the conductor. Also, the field energy does not need to remain constant, provided the change in the field energy is equal to the work done on matter. This is what Poynting theorem describes.
 
Dale said:
Except that energy is not conserved in the field as you have described it. The energy density of the field is proportional to the square of the field. If the field just naively propagates to fill an increasing volume at the same energy density then it contains an ever increasing amount of energy without any input.

Instead of trying to invent a propagation speed for the electric field you should study the known propagation speed of the electromagnetic field.
I didn't assume that the energy would keep increasing. I know that the density falls off as 1 over distance squared.

So is it not conserved because while it does work, the charges on the conductor eventually stop moving? Kind of like how when gravitational potential energy gets lost due to friction?
 
FallenApple said:
So is it not conserved because while it does work, the charges on the conductor eventually stop moving? Kind of like how when gravitational potential energy gets lost due to friction?
No, the conductor is irrelevant to the issue about the field energy increasing over time. As you described it the energy in the field itself continually increases (before it even propagates out to the conductor).

Go ahead and work out the math. Write down the field as a function of t, then square that to get the energy density and integrate over all space to get the total energy. Is it constant?
 
Dale said:
This section is also not correct. There is nothing wrong with field lines terminating on the inside of the conductor. Also, the field energy does not need to remain constant, provided the change in the field energy is equal to the work done on matter. This is what Poynting theorem describes.

If we assume that the field lines are infinite everywhere, the before the conductor got polarized, the field had a certain energy inside the conductor. And the only energy in the universe is due to the single charge Q.

After the conductor got polarized, that original energy inside the conductor is gone. Where did it go?

Does the conductor have higher potential then before, due to the work?
 
FallenApple said:
After the conductor got polarized, that original energy inside the conductor is gone. Where did it go?
What does Poynting's theorem say about it?

This part is a very minor issue compared to the field energy issue, but it is easy to solve with Poynting's theorem.
 
Dale said:
What does Poynting's theorem say about it?

This part is a very minor issue compared to the field energy issue, but it is easy to solve with Poynting's theorem.
"the time rate of change of electromagnetic energy within V plus
the net energy flowing out of V through S per unit time is equal
to the negative of the total work done on the charges within V"


That is the definition. So does that mean that the energy that flowed out is replaced by the energy that the conductor gained?

That makes sense, even though the conductor has no voltage, the potential is different from before due to work.
 
Dale said:
No, the conductor is irrelevant to the issue about the field energy increasing over time. As you described it the energy in the field itself continually increases (before it even propagates out to the conductor).

Go ahead and work out the math. Write down the field as a function of t, then square that to get the energy density and integrate over all space to get the total energy. Is it constant?

I'm not at that point in the textbook that deals of time varying fields. And I rather have a feel for it, which mathematical derivations often don't provide.

But I suppose intuitively it makes sense. Energy can't be created out of nowhere. So the energy do to a point charge over all of space at a particular time must be constant. Therefore while the field lines are getting longer, it needs to cover larger area and they are getting weaker at the same time

Also, the electric field only acts when a test charge is there.
 
  • #10
FallenApple said:
I'm not at that point in the textbook that deals of time varying fields.
You should wait until then. Your thought experiment is highly problematic, and the correct treatment requires knowledge of the time varying fields.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
160
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K