Electric field inside a charged conductor placed in free space.

rohit dutta
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
It is true that under ELECTROSTATIC CONDITIONS, excess charge on a conductor always resides on the surface of the conductor because if they were inside it, there would be an electric field inside the conductor which would set the free electrons into motion. They distribute uniformly over the surface thereby making the electric field inside the conductor zero( Consistent with Gauss's Law ).

Now, I take a spherical metal shell, which has a hole( considerable size ) on the surface and I spray some charge on it. Do you think the electric field inside the conductor will be zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The charge is not necessarily distributed uniformly on the surface. If the conductor is not spherical, there's more charge density near sharp edges and corners of the surface. If you have a charged spherical cap (a sphere with a hole in it), there is a higher charge density around the hole than on other areas.

I don't think the electric field inside a charged spherical cap is exactly zero, but if the hole is small it would be very close to zero.
 
If I consider a star shaped hollow conductor( closed ) and I place some charge on it, the electric field inside the conductor would be zero( under electrostatic conditions ).
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top