General relationship for direction of E field at any given point

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the electric field direction generated by a finite line of positive charge. It is noted that the electric field (E-field) points outward from the line, with the direction depending on the observer's position relative to the charge. The method of integrating charge density using Coulomb's law is suggested to calculate the E-field, although the integration is acknowledged as non-trivial. The right-hand rule is clarified as irrelevant in this context since it applies to current and magnetic fields, not static electric fields. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the symmetry and characteristics of finite versus infinite charge distributions.
Ravenatic20
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I was going through my textbook, Introduction to Electrodynamics, and I came across this question that puzzled me. The book is really great by the way, I would highly recommend it. No, this isn't a homework question, it just got me thinking.

For a finite line of charge (like a rod, for example), there should be a general relationship for the direction of the electric field no matter where point X is located with respect to the finite line of charge. What do you think this general relationship is?

Lets assume it’s a finite line of positive charge. I think of the electric field (E-field) always pointing outwards. So if you take a point X directly above the finite line of charge, say centered, it’s going to point up. But what relationship can we use to describe this?

I know you can take a bunch of little dq's and add them up, and the direction each one of those points as X can be added up as the direction of the E-field.

Can we incorporate the right-hand-rule with this? No rush to answer I was just curious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Ravenatic20! :smile:
Ravenatic20 said:
… I think of the electric field (E-field) always pointing outwards. So if you take a point X directly above the finite line of charge, say centered, it’s going to point up. But what relationship can we use to describe this?

I know you can take a bunch of little dq's and add them up, and the direction each one of those points as X can be added up as the direction of the E-field.

Can we incorporate the right-hand-rule with this? No rush to answer I was just curious.


I think you're trying to say that the direction of the field (which is what the question asks for) always points perpendicularly towards or away from the line.

This follows from symmetry.

(the right-hand-rule has nothing to do with this … there's no current in the line :wink:)
 
tiny-tim, what you say is only if the charge is on an infinite line, but Ravenatic was talking about a finite line of charge.

Anyway, this is a solvable problem. Ravenatic's method of integration is correct, just integrate up the charge density using Coulombs law and you get your E filed. I don't think the integration is trivial, but it can be done. BTW, the right-hand rule has no bearing on this, but it would be if the there was a line of current and you wanted to calculate the B-field.
 
It is, however, a prime candidate for far-field approximation. If we were to observe the fields at a distance r>>L, then the field should be fairly approximated as a point charge of
Q = \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} \rho(z)dz
 
oops!

nnnm4 said:
tiny-tim, what you say is only if the charge is on an infinite line, but Ravenatic was talking about a finite line of charge..

oops! :blushing:

I somehow read "finite" as "infinite" :redface:
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
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...
I passed a motorcycle on the highway going the opposite direction. I know I was doing 125/km/h. I estimated that the frequency of his motor dropped by an entire octave, so that's a doubling of the wavelength. My intuition is telling me that's extremely unlikely. I can't actually calculate how fast he was going with just that information, can I? It seems to me, I have to know the absolute frequency of one of those tones, either shifted up or down or unshifted, yes? I tried to mimic the...
Back
Top