I Gauss' theorem and inverse square law

AI Thread Summary
Gauss's Law applies to various electric fields, including those that do not follow the inverse square law, such as those from an infinite charged rod or plane. The key is that while individual charges obey the inverse square law, the cumulative effect of these charges can yield a constant electric field across a Gaussian surface. This is due to the symmetry of the charge distribution, which allows the flux to remain constant despite the distance. In electrostatics, the divergence and curl of the electric field confirm the existence of an electric potential, supporting the application of Gauss's Law. However, this principle does not extend to time-dependent fields, where the behavior of electromagnetic waves differs significantly.
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 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.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Back
Top