Gauss' law for a cavity in an insulator

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around applying Gauss' law to a cavity within a uniformly charged solid sphere. It highlights that while superimposing positive and negative charge densities suggests no charge is enclosed in the cavity, this does not imply the absence of an electric field. The argument emphasizes that a lack of net flux does not equate to no electric field, as field lines can still exist. Additionally, the importance of symmetry in analyzing electric fields is noted, alongside a suggestion to include relevant figures in future posts for clarity. Understanding these nuances is crucial for correctly interpreting the behavior of electric fields in such configurations.
laser
Messages
104
Reaction score
17
Homework Statement
A solid sphere of radius R has uniform charge density ρ. A hole of radius R/2 is scooped out of it as shown in Figure 10. Show that the field inside the hole is uniform and along the x-axis and of magnitude ρR/6ε0. Hint: Think of the hole as a superposition of positive and negative charges.
Relevant Equations
E=kq/r^2
This is a problem from Yale OCW (Shankar). The solution he gives is as follows:

Screenshot_3.png


Sure, this makes sense. However...

Superimposed rho and negative rho with radius R/2 means there is no charge enclosed in the cavity... therefore
no charge -> no flux -> no electric field.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
laser said:
Homework Statement: A solid sphere of radius R has uniform charge density ρ. A hole of radius R/2 is scooped out of it as shown in Figure 10. Show that the field inside the hole is uniform and along the x-axis and of magnitude ρR/6ε0. Hint: Think of the hole as a superposition of positive and negative charges.
Relevant Equations: E=kq/r^2

This is a problem from Yale OCW (Shankar). The solution he gives is as follows:

View attachment 340207

Sure, this makes sense. However...

Superimposed rho and negative rho with radius R/2 means there is no charge enclosed in the cavity... therefore
no charge -> no flux -> no electric field.
No. You cannot draw the conclusion that there is no electric field. You would need to be able to make some symmetry argument for that to hold.

No net flux only means any field lines that come in also go out somewhere else.
 
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}...
Thread 'Minimum mass of a block'
Here we know that if block B is going to move up or just be at the verge of moving up ##Mg \sin \theta ## will act downwards and maximum static friction will act downwards ## \mu Mg \cos \theta ## Now what im confused by is how will we know " how quickly" block B reaches its maximum static friction value without any numbers, the suggested solution says that when block A is at its maximum extension, then block B will start to move up but with a certain set of values couldn't block A reach...
Back
Top