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.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top