E & M, Infinite sheet of charge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of the electric field produced by an infinite sheet of charge in the presence of other charges. Participants explore the implications of superposition and the specific claims made in a physics textbook regarding the change in the electric field at the surface of the sheet.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assertion that the change in the electric field at the surface of an infinite sheet of charge is always 4(pi)s, arguing that this conclusion does not account for the specific arrangement of external charges.
  • Another participant suggests applying the principle of superposition to analyze the electric field from the infinite sheet of charge alongside the fields from other charges.
  • A different participant expresses confusion over the use of constants in the formula, noting that the presence of additional charges is not represented in the final result, which only includes the surface charge density 's' and the constant 4(pi).
  • One participant defends the superposition approach, stating that it allows for the addition of fields from both the sheet and external charges, leading to a specific difference in field strength on either side of the sheet.
  • A later reply indicates that a misinterpretation of the author's wording regarding "change at the surface" versus "across the surface" contributes to the confusion surrounding the argument.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the claim regarding the change in the electric field at the surface of the sheet. There is no consensus on whether the author's statement is accurate or if it overlooks important factors related to the arrangement of external charges.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is based on interpretations of a textbook and the implications of superposition, which may not fully account for all possible charge arrangements. The use of different unit systems (m.k.s vs. C.G.S) is also mentioned, which may affect the interpretation of the results.

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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
216
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K