Elementary question on Electric flux units

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the units of electric flux, particularly in the context of Gauss's law and the differences between SI and Gaussian (CGS) units. Participants explore the implications of permittivity in the calculation of electric flux and how it relates to charge.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that the net flux over a closed surface can be expressed as the surface integral of the electric field E, leading to the conclusion that the units of flux are Newton meter²/Coulombs.
  • Another participant questions the reasoning behind a book's claim that net flux is simply the charge, suggesting that the book may be using Gaussian units where permittivity is not considered.
  • It is proposed that in SI units, electric flux is volts meters, as the electric field is volts/meter and flux involves integration over area.
  • A participant mentions that in Gaussian units, the vacuum permittivity constant does not exist, which could explain the simplification in the book.
  • Clarification is sought regarding whether the book in question uses SI or Gaussian units, with a specific reference to Purcell's text being made.
  • It is noted that Purcell's book primarily uses CGS units and touches upon SI, which some participants find potentially confusing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of electric flux in different unit systems, with some agreeing that Gaussian units simplify the expression to just charge, while others maintain that SI units involve additional considerations regarding permittivity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these unit systems.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the specific unit system used in the referenced book, and participants highlight the potential confusion arising from the transition between Gaussian and SI units. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of the definitions and implications of electric flux.

jonjacson
Messages
450
Reaction score
38
The net flux over a closed surface is:

Flux = The surface integral of the field E = charge / permitivity in space (Gauss law)

The permitivity in space is:

8.85 10-12 Coulombs2/N m 2

So I understand the units of Flux are:

Newton meter2/Coulombs

Is this correct? I don't understand why in a book they say that the net flux is simply the charge, ignoring the permittivity units.

ALternatively the permittivity could be given in Farad/meter so our flux would be:

Coulombs meter/ Farad

Is this correct?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nobody?
 
jonjacson said:
in a book
a book, eh ? Are they talking about ##\vec E## or about ##\vec D## ?
 
Does your book use SI units or Gaussian? You should really identify the book.
In SI, electric flux is volts meters. (Because electric field is volts/meter, and flux is an integral over area)
 
jonjacson said:
I don't understand why in a book they say that the net flux is simply the charge, ignoring the permittivity units.
As a wild guess, perhaps it uses Gaussian units, in which the vacuum permittivity constant ##\varepsilon_0## does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_units

[ah, now I see Khashishi beat me to it!]
 
Ok, so if it is gaussian units it is just the charge, if it is SI units we have what I said at the start.
I hope this is right, if not let me know.
 
Did you miss
Khashishi said:
Does your book use SI units or Gaussian? You should really identify the book.
 
BvU said:
Did you miss

It is Purcell's classic. It is a fantastic book, it says in gaussian units it is just the charge, but in SI doesn't explicitly say "these are the units", I wanted to check, since I consider that very basic.
 
Purcell Ch1 (probably the rest too) is CGS. He touches upon SI which to me is potentially confusing. Check out appendix E where he says 'in our CGS system'.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K