1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Electric field for an infinite slab with non-uniform charge density

  1. Oct 21, 2013 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Given a volume charge density function defined as follows:

    [itex]\rho=\frac{dQ}{d\tau}= \begin{cases}z-z^{2} & 0<z<1\\
    z+z^{2} & -1<z<0\\
    0 & \text{everywhere else}
    \end{cases}[/itex]
    and is independent of x and y.
    Determine the electric field everywhere (i.e. along the z axis) by an application of Gauss's Law in Differential form. Explain why the field is zero at [itex]z=\pm1[/itex]

    3. The attempt at a solution

    I struggled with this one for a bit, because I couldn't visualize what the math I was doing meant physically. Here's where I got:

    For each of the regions holding a charge, the field produced has no x and y components (they cancel by symmetry), so the differential form of Gauss's Law becomes

    [itex] \nabla\bullet\bar{E}=\frac{\partia{lE_{z}}}{\partial{z}}= z -z^{2}[/itex] ,
    (working with one part of the slab)

    I integrated this to get

    [itex]E_{z} = \frac{1}{2}z^{2} - \frac{1}{3}z^{3} + k, \text{k a constant to be determined}[/itex]

    To find the constant, k, I looked at the outer edge of the surface at z = +1. I made a guess that the field here is zero because the field contribution by the thin charged sheets that make up the slab cancel (the field above a uniformly charged thin sheet of infinite dimensions is uniform). I'm going to prove this later hen I work through the problem with the integral form of Gauss's Law.
    Anyway, knowing that we can find the particular solution to the differential equation above

    [itex]E_{z} = \frac{1}{2}z^{2} - \frac{1}{3}z^{3} + \frac{1}{6}[/itex]

    So that's where I've gotten. I stopped only because I have no idea if what I'm doing is even remotely correct. Some help would be appreciated.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 21, 2013 #2
    I'm using Griffiths and I can't say I've seen a D in the book yet. What is that?
     
  4. Oct 21, 2013 #3

    rude man

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I had to delete my post. Something not right. Hope to post later.
    rude amn
     
  5. Oct 21, 2013 #4

    rude man

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Griffith says del * E = rho? I don't think so.

    Maybe epsilon(del * E) = rho?

    I'm working on a good hint for you.
     
  6. Oct 21, 2013 #5
    Much appreciated. It says div E = rho/epsilon, my mistake.
     
  7. Oct 21, 2013 #6

    rude man

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    D = εE.

    If you have a layer of dielectric with permittivity ε = kε0, k > 1, next to a layer with ε = ε0, the D vector is continuous across the boundary. E is reduced in the dielectric from its value in air (vacuum) by 1/k.
     
  8. Oct 21, 2013 #7

    rude man

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Right now, all I can think of to show that D = E = 0 just outside z = +1 is to use an infintesimally long Gaussian cylinder running from just inside z = +1 to just outside z = +1. The contained charge is zero because the charge density is zero at the boundary, so the integral of flux times cross-sectional area = 0 which means the flux itself = 0. Same for the z = -1 boundary.

    If there is another way to prove this without using a gaussian surface I can't figure it out right now. Maybe later.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted