Electric flux of a cube due to a point charge

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electric flux through a cube due to a point charge, with references to Gauss's Law and symmetry considerations. Participants explore the implications of charge placement and the resulting flux calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss logical reasoning based on symmetry, suggesting that the flux can be derived without extensive calculations. Others mention the potential for lengthy calculations involving integrals, while some consider the use of Gauss's Law as a guiding principle.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different methods to approach the problem, including both logical reasoning and computational techniques. Some participants suggest that invoking Gauss's Law simplifies the process, while others note that the complexity of calculations may vary based on the chosen method.

Contextual Notes

Participants question the necessity of calculations versus logical reasoning and discuss the implications of charge placement on the flux through the cube. There is an acknowledgment of the role of Gauss's Law in both simple and complex scenarios.

The Blind Watchmaker
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


upload_2018-3-9_2-5-23.png


Homework Equations


Gauss's Law

The Attempt at a Solution


I simply used logic and observed the symmetry of the cube. If the charge is placed on the middle of the cube, the flux would simply be Q/∈0. The face of the cube itself can be split into 4 squares, with the charge at the center. Thus, if it is located at the side, it is simply 1/4th of the previous flux. Thus flux = ¼ Q/∈0. However, there is no calculation involved as this is pure logic. Is there any calculation available to show the result? Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-9_2-5-23.png
    upload_2018-3-9_2-5-23.png
    11.3 KB · Views: 6,304
Physics news on Phys.org
The Blind Watchmaker said:
However, there is no calculation involved as this is pure logic. Is there any calculation available to show the result?
That's the way I would do it. One can do the calculation, but it would be quite lengthy and would involve two integrals, one over the top (or bottom) face and one over the left (or back) face. The net flux would be the sum of the two integrals times 2. This question illustrates the usefulness of Gauss's Law.
 
The ”actual computation” way would be to note that the divergence of the field is zero away from the charge to rewrite the integral as the integral over a quarter of a sphere (and two semicircular shaped planar surfaces at which the field is parallel to the surface). The integral over the quarter of a sphere is trivial.
 
Orodruin said:
The ”actual computation” way would be to note that the divergence of the field is zero away from the charge to rewrite the integral as the integral over a quarter of a sphere (and two semicircular shaped planar surfaces at which the field is parallel to the surface). The integral over the quarter of a sphere is trivial.
I note that this method requires the use of Gauss's Law to justify the assertion that the flux through the quarter-sphere is the same as the flux through the cube.

Now that I think about it, the so-called "brute force" method of doing surface integrals over each face is also based on Gauss's Law for the derivation of the electric field due to a charge at the origin, ##\vec E(\vec r) = kq\vec r/r^{3}##. Thus, the calculation of the flux may vary from trivial to involved depending on how and at what point one chooses to bring in Gauss's Law.
 
In general, I don’t think you will get very far in electrostatics without invoking Gauss’ law a few times. As already noted by the OP, the easiest way forward here is to invoke Gauss’ law in conjunction with symmetry. If possible, this will always give you a simpler computation (I would actually consider it a computation as well - even if you are not explicitly solving integrals). I just mentioned changing integration domain if one reallt feels the psychological need to do a surface integral.
 
Orodruin said:
In general, I don’t think you will get very far in electrostatics without invoking Gauss’ law a few times.
I agree.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K