Calculating Electric Field Using Gauss's Law for a Spherical Charge Distribution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chemmjr18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gauss's law Law
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating the electric field using Gauss's Law for a uniformly charged spherical distribution of -30 μC within a radius of 10.0 cm. The electric field values calculated at distances of 2.0 cm and 5.0 cm from the center are -5.8E8 N/C and -1.35E7 N/C, respectively. At a distance of 20.0 cm, the correct approach involves using the total enclosed charge of -30 μC, yielding an electric field of -6.7E6 N/C. The discussion emphasizes the importance of symmetry when applying Gauss's Law and clarifies that Eq. (2) is only valid within the volume containing the charge.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gauss's Law (E⋅A=qenc/ε)
  • Knowledge of electric field calculations for spherical charge distributions
  • Familiarity with concepts of charge density and Gaussian surfaces
  • Basic proficiency in electrostatics and electric field theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of Gauss's Law in electrostatics
  • Learn about electric field calculations for non-uniform charge distributions
  • Explore the implications of symmetry in electric field calculations
  • Investigate the use of integration in calculating electric fields for complex charge distributions
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching electrostatics, and anyone interested in mastering the application of Gauss's Law for electric field calculations.

Chemmjr18
Messages
51
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


A charge of -30 μC is distributed uniformly throughout a spherical volume of radius 10.0 cm. Determine the electric field due to this charge at a distance of (a) 2.0 cm, (b) 5.0 cm, and (c) 20.0 cm from the center of the sphere.

Homework Equations


Eq. (1): E⋅A=qenc
Eq. (2): qenc=q⋅(r/R)3

In qenc, r is the radius of my Gaussian surface and R is the radius of the actual sphere, 10.0 cm.

The Attempt at a Solution


(a) E= -5.8E8 N/C

(b) E= -1.35E7 N/C

(c) This is where I'm a bit stuck. If I let the radius of my Gaussian surface be 20.0 cm, then all of the actual sphere will be enclosed in my surface. Therefore, qenc would be -30 μC. However, if I use Eq. (2), I get that qenc is -2.4E-6 C which wouldn't really make any sense. Why would there be more charge than what's given? Using what I feel is the more rational option (i.e. letting qenc be -30 μC, I get the following answer:
E= -6.7E6 N/C

If I'd used Eq. (2) to find qenc, I would've gotten E= -5.4E7 N/C. This doesn't make any sense to me, since E is proportional to the inverse radius squared.

I have no way to see if this problem is correct, as it comes from a textbook that only shows answers to odd problems and this is an even problem. Thank for any help in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Chemmjr18 said:
If I let the radius of my Gaussian surface be 20.0 cm, then all of the actual sphere will be enclosed in my surface. Therefore, qenc would be -30 μC.
That would be correct.

Chemmjr18 said:
However, if I use Eq. (2),
Your Eq (2) is only valid within the volume that contains the charge. (For r <= R, the radius of the charged sphere.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chemmjr18
Thanks! I just to make sure I'm understanding this topic correctly. Anytime we have a uniform charge distribution, we can imaginarily encompass some or all of that charge distribution in a Gaussian shape and subsequently use Gauss's law to find the electric field at some point relative to the charge distribution? Is it really that simple, or am I just over-simplifying it? Also, if the charge distribution is not uniform (I think this would mean the E-field varies) we have to integrate φ=∫E(x,y)⋅cosθ⋅dA?
 
Chemmjr18 said:
Anytime we have a uniform charge distribution, we can imaginarily encompass some or all of that charge distribution in a Gaussian shape and subsequently use Gauss's law to find the electric field at some point relative to the charge distribution? Is it really that simple, or am I just over-simplifying it?
Yes, it really is that simple. Assuming you have the needed symmetry. If you do not have the symmetry, applying Gauss' law might involve integrations that you won't be able to simply calculate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chemmjr18
Got it. Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K