Electric Flux, Gauss's Law Problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the electric flux through a square due to a proton positioned above it. The initial approach involved calculating the electric field using Coulomb's law and then applying the electric flux formula directly, leading to an incorrect result. The textbook solution correctly applied Gauss's Law, considering the proton within a cube and recognizing that the flux through one face is one-sixth of the total due to symmetry. The key error identified was the assumption of a constant electric field across the square's surface, which varies in reality. Understanding the application of Gauss's Law clarified the discrepancy in the calculated values.
henryli78
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A proton is a distance d/2 directly above the center of a square of side d. What is the magnitude of the electric flux through the square?

Homework Equations


1. Electric flux, \Phi_{net} = \oint \vec{E}\cdot d\vec{A}
2. \Phi_{net} = \frac{q_{enc}}{\epsilon_{0}}
3. \vec{E} = \frac{kQ}{r^{2}}

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to use Equation - 3 first to calculate the net electric field and then from there, use the value of the electric field and multiply it by the area of the square.

I solved for the electric field from Equation 3 to be \frac{4ke}{d^{2}} where k is Coulomb's constant and e\ =\ 1.602176462(63)\ \times\ 10^{-19}\ C

Then I used Equation - 1 and because there is only one surface, the area is just equal to {d^{2}}. Thus, I calculated \Phi_{net} \ =\ \frac{4ke}{d^{2}}\times {d^{2}}\ =\ 4ke\ = 5.8 \times 10^{-9} N*m^2/C.

However, the answer in my textbook says it is actually 3.01 \times10^{-9} N*m^2/C. They used equation two and assumed that if the proton was contained in a cube and the square was one of the faces of the cube, the net electric flux of the cube would be \Phi_{net} = \frac{1.6 \times 10^-19}{\epsilon_{0}} and thus the electric flux for the square is 6 times less that.

Can someone point out how my method is flawed and where I went wrong in my logic? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ahh I forgot to search first. But is it possible if someone could point out where I have a flaw in my logic? I understand the solution's concept but I get why my answer is different.
 
The electric field changes from point to pint along the surface. It is not a constant, as you assumed.
This is also discussed in that thread.
 
Ok thank you very much! I had a hard time really understanding my error but now I get it. Thanks!
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top