Do you think this makes sense?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LucasGB
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the application of Gauss' Law to a charged sphere and the behavior of the electric field near and at the surface of the sphere. Participants explore the implications of defining the surface of the sphere and the resulting electric field characteristics, including potential discontinuities.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that when a Gaussian surface is very close to a charged sphere, the electric field can be expressed as Q/(epsilon 0 times area of the surface), where Q is the charge of the sphere.
  • Another participant suggests that if the Gaussian surface is at the surface of the sphere, then half the charge is considered inside and half outside, leading to an electric field of Q/2(epsilon 0 times area of the surface).
  • There is a proposal that defining the surface of the sphere as the level of the nuclei of the outermost atoms could indicate a discontinuity in the electric field, with different values inside, at the surface, and outside the sphere.
  • A later reply challenges the clarity of the definition of "at the surface" and notes that applying Gauss's Law to a charged surface typically results in a discontinuity in the electric field.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of modeling the surface charge as a uniform band of charge to avoid discontinuities and suggest a smooth variation of the electric field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition of the surface of the sphere and its implications for the electric field. There is no consensus on whether the electric field at the surface can be clearly defined or if it leads to discontinuities.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions and the assumptions made regarding the charge distribution and Gaussian surfaces. The implications of these definitions on the electric field behavior remain unresolved.

LucasGB
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
When a spherical gaussian surface is very close to the surface of a charged sphere, but not at the surface of the sphere, the electric field is, according to Gauss' Law:

Q/(epsilon 0 times area of the surface)

where Q is the charge of the sphere. But when the gaussian surface is at the surface of the sphere, half the charge is inside the surface, and half the charge is outside. (Think of a line of atoms with orbiting electrons. The gaussian surface is leveled with the nuclei, so statistically speaking, half the electrons are above it, and half are below it.) Therefore, according to Gauss' Law, the electric field is:

Q/2(epsilon 0 times area of the surface)

Which is half the electric field at extreme proximity. Inside the sphere the field would, of course, be zero. Does this seem sensible to you?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess it just depends on what you define to be the surface of the sphere.
 
If I define the surface of the sphere as the level I mentioned (leveled with the nuclei of the atoms of the outermost layer) then we can say there is a discontinuity in the electric field? Outside the sphere it falls with the inverse square, inside the sphere it is zero, and at the surface it is half the field at extreme proximity. Is this right?
 
LucasGB said:
If I define the surface of the sphere as the level I mentioned (leveled with the nuclei of the atoms of the outermost layer) then we can say there is a discontinuity in the electric field? Outside the sphere it falls with the inverse square, inside the sphere it is zero, and at the surface it is half the field at extreme proximity. Is this right?
No, since "at the surface" is not clearly defined.

Whenever you apply Gauss's law to a charged surface you'll get a discontinuity in the electric field. (Note that the charge is always contained within the Gaussian surface and not on it.) Consider an infinite plane sheet of charge. The field on one side is +σ/2ε0 and the other it is -σ/2ε0.

If that bothers you, then instead of arbitrarily modeling the surface charge on the sphere as being two surfaces, picture it as a uniform band of charge. That way you can imagine the field smoothly varying from zero to its full value outside of the sphere.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K