Guass's Law for a charge distribution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Gauss's Law to a long cylindrical charge distribution with uniform charge density. The confusion arises over whether to use the total charge of the entire cylinder or just the charge within the Gaussian surface when calculating the electric field. It is clarified that the electric field at a point depends only on the charges enclosed by the Gaussian surface, not on external charges. The correct approach is to consider the Gaussian cylinder's volume, leading to the conclusion that the electric field inside the cylinder should be expressed in terms of the radius 'r' of the Gaussian surface. Ultimately, the electric field formula derived using the Gaussian cylinder is confirmed as correct.
Demon117
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
First, this is not a homework question, just something I've been confused about for some time. I understand how to use Guass's law in many ways but one thing I have always stumbled with is whether the E-field of a charge distribution should involve little r or big R in such an example:

In finding the E-field of a long cylindrical charge distribution with radius R and a uniform charge density \rho. If I want to find the E-field inside (r<R) such a distribution shouldn't the final answer contain a big R?

Here is my work. Since we have cylindrical symmetry we can consider a guassian cylinder of radius r inside about the cylindrical axis. The total charge Q is given by Q=\rho V where V is the volume of the entire cylinder correct? (This is where I get confused) Or just the Guassian cylinder?

If the entire cylinder then the volume is V=\pi R^{2}L, where L is the length of the cylindrical volume. Then working out the rest of the problem we have:

\oint EdA=E(2\pi r)L = \frac{Q}{\epsilon_{0}} = \frac{\rho \pi R^{2}L}{\epsilon_{0}}
E = \frac{\rho R^2}{2 \epsilon_{0} r}

If the Guassian cylinder then the volume is V=\pi r^{2}L, then the E-field is just:

E = \frac{\rho r}{2 \epsilon_{0}}

Do you see my confusion? I need to understand this and I think it is just geometrical issue. . .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to be aware of a very important aspect of Gauss's Law - that the field at any point r depends ONLY on the charges enclosed by the surface of size r (under highly symmetric situation). The charges outside the surface do not contribute to the E-field.

So in your example, you could have R = infinity if you wish, and you still have the same expression for the E-field, because it only cares about the amount of charges enclosed by your gaussian surface.

Zz.
 
It's the Gaussian cylinder. Otherwise, there is no point to making the Gaussian surface in the first place.
 
If you're confident you've done it right, you have to believe the results which you get!
 
Last edited:
According to the Gauss's Law, Q is the charge inside the gaussian surface. So, the 2nd answer involving 'r' is right.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top