E & M, Infinite sheet of charge

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the behavior of an infinite sheet of charge as described in 'Berkeley Physics Course Volume 2, Electricity and Magnetism'. It concludes that the change in the electric field at the surface of the sheet, due to the presence of external charges, is consistently 4πs, where 's' is the surface charge density. This result arises from the principle of superposition, which allows for the addition of electric fields from both the sheet and external charges. The participants debate the implications of this conclusion and the assumptions made in the original text regarding the arrangement of external charges.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric fields and charge distributions
  • Familiarity with the principle of superposition in electrostatics
  • Knowledge of Gaussian surfaces and their application in electrostatics
  • Proficiency in both m.k.s and C.G.S units for physics calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric fields from infinite sheets of charge
  • Explore the application of the superposition principle in electrostatics
  • Learn about Gaussian surfaces and their role in calculating electric fields
  • Investigate the differences between m.k.s and C.G.S units in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching electromagnetism, and anyone interested in the principles of electrostatics and electric field calculations.

SpaceExplorer
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
The problem I have is about a simple remark made in the book 'Berkeley Physics Course Volume 2, Electricity and Magnetism', chap. 3 figure 3.4 b. It says that if we have an infinite sheet of charge but with 'other charges' present elsewhere in the system, the only thing we can predict is that at the surface, there will be a change of 4(pi)s, where 's' is the surface charge density, in Ex and 0 in Ey. Why is that? (the book only deals in m.k.s units)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SpaceExplorer said:
Why is that?
Consider the field from an infinite sheet of charge with nothing else around. What's the field on each side? Then consider the additional field that might be present because of other charges. Apply the principle of superposition.

SpaceExplorer said:
(the book only deals in m.k.s units)
Purcell uses (if I recall) Gaussian CGS units, not S.I. (mks) units.
 
Oh... I wanted to write C.G.S, but wrote M.K.S instead, thanks for pointing that out. The problem with the superposition thing is that the scenario doesn't consider a particular arrangement of external charges, but rather generalises the proposition to all the possible arrangements; logically, the change in the field at a point on the surface should be different for different arrangements, so it doesn't make sense that the end result will always have to be 4.(pi).s. Moreover there's no variable or constant in the final result that even accounts for the presence of extra charges, 's' is just the surface charge density, while 4 and pi are unrelated constants.
 
SpaceExplorer said:
The problem with the superposition thing is that the scenario doesn't consider a particular arrangement of external charges, but rather generalises the proposition to all the possible arrangements;
That's the beauty of the superposition argument, not the problem.

SpaceExplorer said:
logically, the change in the field at a point on the surface should be different for different arrangements,
Why is that?

The idea is this. Say there are a bunch of charges in arbitrary arrangement (but just not on the sheet) that end up creating a field E where that sheet of charge is to be located. To find the total field, you would add to that the field from the sheet of charge. So on one side you'd have ##E - 2\pi\sigma## and on the other side you'd have ##E + 2\pi\sigma##, for a difference of ##4\pi\sigma##.
 
I think you're right.I thought of the same thing at the beginning. But I think the author has done a technical mistake because of which I was having the trouble. Purcell says 'the change 'at' the surface' must be 4(pi)s, if he said 'across' the surface, I would have been convinced by the same argument you are giving me now long before.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
548
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K