Electric Field Near a Plane of Charge: Why is the Total Field Not Zero?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the electric field near a large nonconducting plane of charge with density sigma. The electric field is calculated to be sigma / (2*epsilon_0), which may seem counterintuitive as one might expect the total field to be zero due to opposing directions at the ends of a Gaussian surface. However, the key point is that the electric field contributions at each end of the Gaussian cylinder do not cancel because they are evaluated at different locations, leading to a net positive contribution to the total flux. This clarification emphasizes that the fields at the top and bottom surfaces of the cylinder must be considered as separate contributions rather than directly canceling each other. Understanding this concept resolves the confusion regarding the non-zero total electric field.
bigplanet401
Messages
101
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find the electric field near a large nonconducting plane of charge density sigma.


Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



I am working through chapter 24 of Giancoli and am having trouble understanding the concepts. This is example 24-4, and the magnitude of the electric field is found to be
sigma / (2*epsilon_0). But shouldn't the total electric field be zero?

The Gaussian surface would be a cylinder with tops parallel to the plane. The field points normally outward from the tops, but in opposite directions. Wouldn't this mean the total field is 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bigplanet401 said:
The Gaussian surface would be a cylinder with tops parallel to the plane. The field points normally outward from the tops, but in opposite directions. Wouldn't this mean the total field is 0?
No. When adding up the flux through each segment of the Gaussian surface, think of the surface area as pointing outward. So at both ends of this Gaussian cylinder the field points in the direction of the surface area vector, thus they add and do not cancel.
 
But don't the surface normals point in opposite directions? Suppose the plane of charge is in the xy-plane. Then the gaussian surface would have its top surface normal pointing in the +z direction and the bottom surface normal pointing in the -z direction.

Mathematically, I can see why the magnitude of the field is non-zero:

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \oint \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{dA} &amp;= +E\hat{z} \cdot +A\hat{z} + (-E\hat{z}) \cdot (-A\hat{z}) \\<br /> &amp;= 2EA = \frac{\sigma A}{\epsilon_0} \, .<br /> \end{align*}<br />

But if the field points in the direction of the surface normal at each end of the cylinder, and each end of the cylinder is the same distance from the plane, why wouldn't they cancel?

<br /> E\hat{z} \text{ (top) } + (-E \hat{z}) \text{ (bottom) } = 0 \, .<br />
 
bigplanet401 said:
But don't the surface normals point in opposite directions? Suppose the plane of charge is in the xy-plane. Then the gaussian surface would have its top surface normal pointing in the +z direction and the bottom surface normal pointing in the -z direction.
Exactly right. And since the field at those surfaces points in the same direction as the surface normal, each surface makes a positive contribution to the total flux.

Mathematically, I can see why the magnitude of the field is non-zero:

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \oint \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{dA} &amp;= +E\hat{z} \cdot +A\hat{z} + (-E\hat{z}) \cdot (-A\hat{z}) \\<br /> &amp;= 2EA = \frac{\sigma A}{\epsilon_0} \, .<br /> \end{align*}<br />
Exactly.

But if the field points in the direction of the surface normal at each end of the cylinder, and each end of the cylinder is the same distance from the plane, why wouldn't they cancel?

<br /> E\hat{z} \text{ (top) } + (-E \hat{z}) \text{ (bottom) } = 0 \, .<br />
Why would the field at the top surface cancel the field at the bottom surface? They are at different locations! (You cannot add the fields at different locations.)

The field at the bottom surface is already the total field at the bottom; similarly for the top surface.
 
Why would the field at the top surface cancel the field at the bottom surface? They are at different locations! (You cannot add the fields at different locations.)

Yikes! That's what I was trying to do. Now it makes a lot more sense. Thanks!
 
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