Undergrad Confusion with the direction of E-fields near conductors

  • #31
rudransh verma said:
@DaveE To summarise I will say there is a isolated conductor which has zero E inside and outside. Now it’s charged. For a brief moment there will be a net internal electric field due to all these charges but that net field will soon disappear because these charges will soon redistribute itself in such a way that the net field on each charge due to all charges is zero. Field at every point become zero. Now the charges are at the surface making perpendicular field to the surface. Why? Its true that the outside tangential field will have an effect inside tangentially. But that doesn’t mean outside field is perpendicular. The field can well be at an angle and there would be an internal tangential field. Why are we saying because the internal field is zero! Of course It’s will be zero . All the charges are now on surface. Real reason is that the charges don’t move on the surface. That’s why the field lines are perpendicular to the surface.
I guess it was experimentally seen that charges don’t move on the surface. They become static. That is why we say fields are perpendicular.

@ergospherical You say inside field is zero. Tangential field both inside and thus outside is zero. Field is so perpendicular. But isn’t it possible that there is no field inside but the field due to surface charge is not perpendicular and have a tangential component along the surface.
No. I'm not sure I have anything to add that hasn't previously been said.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DaveE said:
No
So you are saying there will be a tangential field inside in that case. Ok then let there be. Are you saying field inside has been found zero when measured in case of charges on the surface.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
rudransh verma said:
So you are saying there will be a tangential field inside in that case. Ok then let there be. Are you saying field inside has been found zero when measured in case of charges on the surface.
No. I didn't say that.
 
  • #34
DaveE said:
No. I didn't say that.
Please explain!
 
  • #35
As I said before, I think I did previously explain what I can. Maybe more reading of answers than asking redundant questions would help you? I'm sorry if you don't understand what I was saying, but I don't know how to say it more clearly.
I think I'm done here.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy, nasu, vanhees71 and 1 other person
  • #36
rudransh verma said:
What does that mean? I didn’t catch you. Also Please complete your sentence.
Change in e sub r.
This changes the ratio between B field and E field intensity in the location.
tangential current exists to carry this E field component.
 
  • Wow
Likes Delta2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K