Electric field inside a parallel plate capacitor

AI Thread Summary
In a parallel plate capacitor, the electric field between the plates is constant due to the opposing charges on each plate. Using a Gaussian "pillbox" inside the plates that encloses zero charge leads to the conclusion that the flux is zero, which can be confusing. However, this does not imply that the electric field inside the pillbox is zero; it simply indicates that there is no contribution to the field from within that specific surface. Unlike a charged spherical shell, where the field inside is zero due to the absence of charge, the electric field between the plates remains non-zero despite the enclosed charge being zero. Understanding this distinction clarifies the behavior of electric fields in different configurations.
beardo34
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Ok I took E&M about 3 years ago and decided I needed to review it. I'm up to gauss' law and am getting confused about one thing. If you have two infinitely long oppositely charged plates, solving for the total e field inside is done by making two gaussian surfaces that enclose each plate. Doing this gives the e field to be a constant between the plates.

My question is, why can't I make a gaussian "pillbox" inside the plates and enclosing zero charge and conclude that the flux through that surface is zero since the field goes in one side and leaves through the other? Obviously I'm making a mistake here somewhere because the field in between the plates is NOT zero but I can't figure out what the mistake is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
beardo34 said:
Ok I took E&M about 3 years ago and decided I needed to review it. I'm up to gauss' law and am getting confused about one thing. If you have two infinitely long oppositely charged plates, solving for the total e field inside is done by making two gaussian surfaces that enclose each plate. Doing this gives the e field to be a constant between the plates.

My question is, why can't I make a gaussian "pillbox" inside the plates and enclosing zero charge and conclude that the flux through that surface is zero since the field goes in one side and leaves through the other? Obviously I'm making a mistake here somewhere because the field in between the plates is NOT zero but I can't figure out what the mistake is.

Sure you can do that. The conclusion from Gauss' law is that the pillbox encloses no charge. This is not an unexpected result :smile:
 
Okay but doesn't that mean the electric field inside that pillbox is zero? I am just getting confused because when you have a charged spherical shell, the field inside is zero because there is no charge.
 
beardo34 said:
Okay but doesn't that mean the electric field inside that pillbox is zero? I am just getting confused because when you have a charged spherical shell, the field inside is zero because there is no charge.

No, you can place such a pillbox anywhere in a given electric field where the enclosed charge is zero, yet there is still a field. This tells you that there is no contribution to the field from inside the pillbox.

The Gaussian surface inside a charged spherical shell tells you the same thing -- no enclosed charge and no contribution from inside the pillbox. The field inside the shell is zero for other reasons (see: Newton's Shell Theorem).
 
Ohh okay, that's what I was missing. Thanks a lot!
 
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