Electric field inside & outside of a spherical shell

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the electric field inside and outside a spherical shell of radius R, as posed in a problem from Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics. Participants explore the implications of charge distribution on the electric field, referencing theoretical concepts such as Gauss's law and the Shell Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the electric field inside the spherical shell as zero due to the absence of charge within it, while the field outside is expressed as depending on the surface charge density and distance from the center.
  • Another participant clarifies that the radius R refers to the shell's radius and r to the distance from the center, leading to a formulation of the electric field outside as diminishing with the square of the distance.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the electric field inside the shell, questioning why the surface charge does not generate an electric field within the shell.
  • Responses indicate that the electric field inside the shell is zero because contributions from the surface charge cancel each other out, referencing the Shell Theorem.
  • Further elaboration suggests that the cancellation of electric field contributions occurs due to symmetry, with a participant noting that the vector nature of the electric field plays a role in this cancellation.
  • Another participant proposes that performing the integral of contributions from the surface charge would illustrate the cancellation, suggesting that the potential inside the shell remains constant.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of using Gauss's law in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the electric field being zero inside the shell due to charge cancellation, but there is some debate regarding the implications of the electric field outside the shell and the interpretation of the results.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the Shell Theorem and Gauss's law without providing formal proofs or detailed calculations, leaving some assumptions and mathematical steps unresolved.

mondo
Messages
27
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I am reading Griffiths Introduction to electrodynamics. Currently I am solving problem 2.11 which asks to find an electric field inside and outside a spherical shell of radius R.
Inside:
$$\int{E \cdot da} = \frac{Q}{e_0} = |E|4\pi r^2 = \frac{Q}{e_0} = 0$$ The result is $$0$$ because we have no charge inside the Sphare
Outside:
$$\int{E \cdot da} = \frac{Q}{e_0} = |E|4\pi R^2 = \frac{\sigma4\pi R^2}{e_0} => E = \frac{\sigma R^2}{e_0r^2}$$
And here is my question, for the electric field outside of the sphere we see it depends on how far away we are from the sphere ($$R$$) and it looks like it will grow with square of the distance from the sphare! Does it make sense? Shouldn't it get weaker and weaker as we move away from the charge distribution that is on the sphere?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't ##R## the radius of the shell and ##r## the distance from the centre? That would make sense, giving the total charge ##Q=4\pi R^2\sigma## and hence ##E=Q/4\pi\epsilon_0 r^2##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mondo
I think you are right. Thank you.
So in light of that, the electric field diminishes in proportion to $$\frac{1}{r^2}$$ which makes sense.

There is one more thing that is not entirely clear to me. On one hand I agree that the electric field inside the sphere is 0 due to no charge inside. However the charge distributed on the surface of the sphere should generate an electric field inside the sphere as well - in the same way as it does outside of the sphere. What do I miss here?
 
mondo said:
There is one more thing that is not entirely clear to me. On one hand I agree that the electric field inside the sphere is 0 due to no charge inside. However the charge distributed on the surface of the sphere should generate an electric field inside the sphere as well - in the same way as it does outside of the sphere. What do I miss here?
That field cancels itself out. This is one part of the Shell Theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SummeryWinter and mondo
mondo said:
What do I miss here?
It should be obvious that the field is zero at the centre of the sphere, because the contribution from any point on the sphere is cancelled by the contribution from the opposite point. (Remember ##E## is actually a vector, ##\vec E##.)

It's less obvious off center, but roughly speaking as you move away from the centre there is less charge on one side of you than the other, but it's closer to you. The reduced average ##r^2## and the reduced ##q## cancel out. You can find plenty of formal proofs of the Shell Theorem online. Wikipedia's looks OK at a glance.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mondo
I think this is one of those cases where it is actually instructive to perform the integral of all contributions and see that they cancel out even if we know that they must simply on the basis of Gauss’ law.

Hint: The integral for finding the potential rather than the field is a bit easier. It should result in a constant expression inside the shell.

Edit: In other words, take a point ##\vec x’## and compute the integral
$$
V(\vec x’) = \int_{r=R} \frac{\sigma}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 |\vec x - \vec x’|} dS
$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS, SummeryWinter and Vanadium 50
Orodruin said:
I think this is one of those cases where it is actually instructive to perform the integral
I agree. There is too much "I am not going to do the calculation, but think I would get a different result than in the book."
 
Use Gauss's law.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
620
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
981
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
8K