Electric Field and Potential in a Conductor: Zero at the Surface?

AI Thread Summary
Inside a conductor, all points are at the same potential, meaning there is no potential difference between points on the surface and inside. While the electric field within the conductor is zero in a static situation, the electric field at the surface is not zero; it has a non-zero normal component due to surface charge. The tangential electric field is zero, indicating no movement of charge along the surface. The charge distribution on the surface responds to any applied electric field, creating this normal electric field. Therefore, while potential is uniform, the electric field at the surface remains significant.
aftershock
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
I understand that if two points are inside a conductor they're at the same potential. I also understand that if two points lie on the surface of the conductor they're at the same potential.

If point a lies on the surface of a conductor and point b lies inside is there still zero potential difference between a and b?

If so, does that mean the electric field at the surface of a conductor is also zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For you first point, yes. The entire volume of a conductor is equipotential. However, that does not mean that the electric field at the surface is zero. The tangential electric field is zero, but the normal electric field is non-zero. The non-zero normal field is a result of the charge that builds up on the surface of the conductor in response to the applied electric field.
 
electric field inside the conductor is zero in static situation.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top