E field outside a current carrying wire

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the electric field outside a resistanceless wire carrying a steady current, specifically in relation to the Poynting vector. It highlights that the solutions manual suggests a radial electric field proportional to 1/r, which raises questions about the underlying assumptions of linear charge density and static scenarios. The conversation touches on the relationship between electric fields, voltage gradients, and current density, while also considering the implications of special relativity, such as length contraction affecting charge density. There is also a query regarding the impact of nonzero resistance on the calculations. The thread concludes with a request for clarification on the relevant passage in different editions of a physics textbook.
conquerer7
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



One step in one of the problems in my book (involving calculation of the Poynting vector) asks to find the electric field outside a wire. This wire is resistanceless and the current is steady.

Homework Equations



Maxwell's.

The Attempt at a Solution



Stared at it for a while, had no idea how there would possibly be an electric field, solutions manual says the wire creates a radial one proportional to 1/r.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm. This is a strange question. It seems your book is claiming that there is some linear charge density produced by the current, which then that makes a 1/r radial field. However, the linear charge density assumes a static scenario, which you don't have. Really, the way a wire works is that there is some potential across it V=IR, and the field is the gradient of the voltage (or, alternatively, the field is J/resistivity where J is current density).
 
Would this have anything to do with special relativity? I remember seeing something about length contraction when switching reference frames once, and about how that produced a charge density out of nowhere.

Edit: what if there's a nonzero resistance?
 
which book? :confused:
 
5th edition of HRK's Physics, chapter 38, problem 11.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top