E-field between two concentric cylinders (not homework)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the electric field (E-field) between two concentric cylinders with opposite uniform surface charges. It is established that the E-field in the region between the cylinders (a<r<b) is determined solely by the inner cylinder, as per Gauss's Law, since the outer cylinder does not contribute to the enclosed charge. The confusion arises regarding the physical reasoning behind this, particularly why the outer cylinder's charge does not affect the field in that region. It is clarified that the net electric flux from the outer cylinder is zero, leading to no contribution to the E-field inside. The conclusion emphasizes that the outer cylinder's field is indeed zero within the shell, reinforcing the application of Gauss's Law in this scenario.
JDStupi
Messages
117
Reaction score
2
Hi, I have a question. Suppose you have two concentric cylinders of radii a and b with opposite uniform surface charges, line charges or something to that effect. Now, I know (or was told) that the E-field between the two, that is for a<r<b, is equal to the field from the inner cylinder (radius a). This is because if you draw a Gaussian surface in the region between a and b the only enclosed charge is that of the inner cylinder and, as such, the field produced will be solely due to that cylinder. Now, my question is what is physically going on? I understand the mathematical explanation in terms of Gauss Law, but I do not understand why, physically, the outer cylinder would not contribute. the way I see it there would be charges emitting a field from both and being equal and opposite they would cancel leaving nothing in that region. Why does the presence or lack thereof of a charge not make a difference wthin that region? I understand that the flux has to be zero from the outer cylinder as whatever goes in the cylinder comes out the other side thus making a net flux of zero, but I don't know, something about the physical field picture is confusing me. Simply looking at the E-field it seems counterintuitive that the field, though proximal, wouldn't make a difference.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You might want to do the exercise of directly calculating the field just due to the outer cylindrical shell of charge for all points within the shell. You'll find that its contribution to the field inside the shell is exactly zero. (At least for an infinitely long cylinder.)
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top