Gauss' law (1/r^3 instead of 1/r^2)

AI Thread Summary
If the electric field of a point charge were proportional to 1/(r^3), Gauss's law would not remain valid as it currently stands. The reasoning is based on the relationship between electric field strength and the surface area of a Gaussian surface. For a 1/(r^2) field, the flux through a spherical surface scales with the area, allowing for consistent application of Gauss's law. However, with a 1/(r^3) dependency, the flux would not scale appropriately with the surface area, leading to inconsistencies in the law's application. Thus, the fundamental principles underlying Gauss's law would be violated in this scenario.
geronimo8
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If the electric field of a point charge were proportional to 1/(r^3) instead of 1/(r^2), would Gauss's law still be valid? Explain reasoning.


Homework Equations


untitled.png


The Attempt at a Solution


Considered a spherical Gaussian surface centered on a single point charge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How would the flux through a sphere of radius one centered on the charge compare with the flux through a sphere of radius two?
 
What is true of the entire sphere is also true of any portion of its surface, I believe...
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top