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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top