Gauss's Law for Line of Charge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Gauss's Law to an infinitely long line of charge, specifically addressing the nature of the electric field and the resulting flux through a cylindrical Gaussian surface. Participants explore the implications of symmetry and the directionality of the electric field in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why there is no flux through the ends of the cylindrical surface if the electric field is radially outward, suggesting that there may be field lines through the ends.
  • Another participant asserts that for an infinite line of charge, the electric field must be purely radial, leading to zero flux through the ends since the field has no component normal to the surface.
  • A participant reiterates the symmetry argument, emphasizing that if the field were to tilt in the z direction, it would not favor either direction due to the infinite nature of the charge distribution.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of two infinitesimal point charges on the perpendicular bisector, arguing that their contributions to the electric field in the z direction cancel out, reinforcing that the electric field radiates only in the radial direction.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of "radially outward," with some participants clarifying that in cylindrical symmetry, it refers to a direction perpendicular to the axis of symmetry, contrasting it with spherical symmetry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the symmetry of the electric field for an infinite line of charge, leading to zero flux through the ends of the cylinder. However, there remains some contention regarding the interpretation of "radially outward" and whether it implies a component through the ends of the cylinder.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of symmetry and the directionality of the electric field, indicating that the discussion is nuanced and dependent on the definitions used.

mvpshaq32
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Just refreshing on Gauss's Law.

For a line of charge, we choose a cylindrical Gaussian surface. But if the E field is radially outwards, why is there no flux through the ends of the cylinder and only through the sides?

I know that the field is only assumed to be perpendicular to the sides of the cylinder, but isn't there field through the ends as well?

Or is the flux through the ends zero because the line of charge is infinitely long and there are field lines in equal and opposite direction at the ends of the cylinder so they cancel out, hence there is no flux?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the line is straight and infinite then, by symmetry, the E field must be purely radial. Therefore the flux on the ends is zero since the field has no component normal to the surface.
 
DaleSpam said:
If the line is straight and infinite then, by symmetry, the E field must be purely radial. Therefore the flux on the ends is zero since the field has no component normal to the surface.

Yes, I understand that, but does radially outward not mean outward in all directions?

That includes going through the ends of the cylinder
 
Just think about it from a symmetry point of view. Could there be a net field going one way or the other?
 
mvpshaq32 said:
Yes, I understand that, but does radially outward not mean outward in all directions?

That includes going through the ends of the cylinder
An infinite line is axisymmetric, or in other words it can best be represented using cylindrical coordinates. Radially outward here means in the direction of the r coordinate, which is always perpendicular to the line itself.

Consider this. Either the field can be purely in the r direction, or it could tilt a little in the z direction. If it were to tilt in the z direction, how could it choose whether to tilt in the +z or the -z direction? Everything is symmetric, the charge goes out to infinity in both directions. Since there is no way for the field to choose +z or -z then it must be purely r.
 
Yes and we can also consider the two infinitesimal point charges where a given point in the field lies on their perpendicular bisector. The field strengthes in the z direction clearly cancel each other out. And this holds true for any points in the field if the line charge is infinitely long so we can say E is radiating on the r direction only.
 
mvpshaq32 said:
does radially outward not mean outward in all directions?

It depends on the context. In a situation with spherical symmetry, e.g. a point charge, it means "outwards in all directions from the center." In a situation with cylindrical symmetry, e.g. a line charge, it means "perpendicularly outwards from the axis of symmetry."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K