Gauss' theorem and inverse square law

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Gauss' theorem, which states that the electric flux through a closed surface is equal to the enclosed charge divided by the permittivity of free space (Q/ε), applies to various electric field configurations, including those that do not follow the inverse square law. The discussion clarifies that while individual charges obey the inverse square law, the cumulative effect of charges on infinite structures like charged rods or planes results in a constant electric field, allowing Gauss' law to remain valid. The mathematical foundation includes the divergence of the electric field and its relationship to charge density, as well as the implications of the Laplace operator in electrostatics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gauss' Law in electrostatics
  • Familiarity with electric field concepts and charge distributions
  • Knowledge of vector calculus, particularly divergence and gradient operations
  • Basic principles of electromagnetic theory, including Maxwell's equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Gauss' Law for different charge distributions, such as infinite planes and rods
  • Learn about the mathematical derivation of electric fields from charge distributions using the Laplace operator
  • Explore the differences between static and dynamic electric fields in the context of Maxwell's equations
  • Investigate the concept of electric potential and its relationship to electric fields in electrostatics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on electromagnetism, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of electric fields and charge interactions.

physics user1
So, I know that the gauss law states that the Flux of the electric field through a closed surface is Q/ε , but does the gauss theorem works also for non inverse square law Fields?

I think not because in order to not have a Flux depending on distance but a constant one we need that r^2 of the surface has to cancel with something that is r^2 too, am I right?

And why then is correct to calculate the electric field caused by a infinite long charged rod or an infinite plane charged surface, the electric field there doesn't obey to the inveresults square law but we assume that the gauss theorem works...

I thought about this and I came to the conclusion that individually charges on the rod or the surface obeys to the inverse square law, it's just the sum of all these electric fields of all the charged enclosed in the gauss surface that are not inverse square so it's OK because that, is my "theory" Right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gauss's Law reads (in Heaviside-Lorentz units)
$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\rho.$$
For electrostatics you also have
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}=0$$
and this implies that there exists (in any simply connected region of space) an electric potential such that
$$\vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla} \phi.$$
This implies
$$\Delta \phi=-\rho,$$
and the Treen's function for the (negative) Laplace operator in 3D Euclidean space is
$$G(\vec{x},\vec{x}')=\frac{1}{4 \pi |\vec{x}-\vec{x}'|}.$$
From a long distance you can characterize any charge distribution just by its total charge, and the corresponding monopole contribution to the potential reads
$$\phi(\vec{x})=\frac{Q}{4 \pi |\vec{x}|} \; \Rightarrow \; \vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla} \phi=\frac{Q}{4 \pi |\vec{x}|^2} \frac{\vec{x}}{|\vec{x}|}.$$
So the leading order of the multipole expansion indeed always decays with ##1/r^2## with distance (in three dimensions).

Of course, this does not hold for the full Maxwell equations, i.e., for time-dependnet fields. There the leading order of the em. waves goes like ##1/r##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: physics user1
The radiated electric field depends on 1/r but it's perpendicular to the direction of propagation so the total flux is zero. If you take an sphere centered on an accelerating particle the electric field will be perpendicular to the surface everywhere so the flux will be zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
371
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K