I Determining continuity using Gauss' law

Click For Summary
Gauss' law effectively determines the discontinuity of the electric field at points on a surface charge, where the normal component of the electric field experiences a jump proportional to the surface charge. For non-singular volume-charge distributions, there are no discontinuities in the electric field, as confirmed by the Gauss pill-box argument. The discussion raises the possibility of using alternative methods to prove this concept without relying solely on Gauss' law. Clarifications regarding these concepts are anticipated in future posts. Understanding these principles is crucial for analyzing electric fields in various charge distributions.
Mike400
Messages
59
Reaction score
6
I know how Gauss law helps us to calculate the discontinuity at a point on the surface of a surface charge.

Similarly using Gauss law, is there a way to determine the continuity at other points of electric field due to a surface charge or the continuity at all points of electric field due to a volume charge?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand the question. If there's a surface charge, the normal component of the electric field jumps by that surface charge (modulo some factors depending on the system of units). If you have a non-singular volume-charge distribution there are no discontinuities.
 
vanhees71 said:
If you have a non-singular volume-charge distribution there are no discontinuities.
Can we prove it using Gauss law?
 
Sure, just use the "Gauss pill-box argument" to a situation where you have a non-singular charge distribution.
 
  • Like
Likes Mike400
Thanks a lot... Anyway I have to clear some confusions regarding that. I will post my confusions tomorrow... I am so sleepy
 
vanhees71 said:
If you have a non-singular volume-charge distribution there are no discontinuities.
Are there any other simple methods to prove it without using Gauss law?
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...