The discussion revolves around understanding the orientation of equipotential surfaces in the context of a uniform electric field of 6700 N/C directed in the negative x direction. Participants are exploring the relationship between electric fields and equipotential surfaces, specifically in three-dimensional space.
There is an ongoing exploration of the problem, with participants questioning their assumptions and attempting to visualize the three-dimensional aspects of the situation. Some guidance has been provided regarding the relationship between the electric field and equipotential surfaces, but no consensus has been reached on the correct answer.
Participants note the challenge of visualizing three-dimensional concepts and the limitations of their textbook in illustrating these ideas. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in understanding equipotential surfaces in relation to electric fields.
v0id19 said:i'll try to rephrase the question:
a continuous, 2 dimensional shape in which of the following planes (a, b, or c) would have an equal potential throughout its entire surface
Hannisch said:There are three dimensions involved.
Remember, an equipotential surface is perpendicular to the electric field--if you draw (or imagine, whichever you find easier) the electric field and define the x-axis, the y-axis and the z-axis, you can find the plane that would always be perpendicular to the field.
Hannisch said:Yes, it'd be vertical, but remember it has a thickness as well.
A new wording might help: The electric field is along the x-axis. If you have the xy plane, as an example, it would go along the x-axis as well, but with a height or something. If two things go along the same axis, can they ever be perpendicular?
Hannisch said:Yes, because something going along the same axis as another thing will never be perpendicular to each other. Hopefully you see why precisely it's ruled out. Try to use the same logic with the other alternatives and you might come up with the correct answer. But try to really understand what you are doing!
Hannisch said:Three dimensions isn't the easiest thing to imagine and it's not the easiest thing to write either. You are correct in that it's the yz plane.
Try to think of it like this or something:
Use a piece of cardboard or something similar--if you put it on the table on the edge and it's facing you, you have a xy plane. If you lie it down on the table you have a xz plane. If you put it on the edge again but with the thin side facing you, that's a yz plane.
Or sort of just think of the z-axis to come out of the paper or something.
And electric fields always exist in three dimensions. If you have a field around a point charge you only draw the field lines parallel to the paper, but you sort of have to imagine that there are field lines going up from the paper and down through the table as well, because the field isn't only limited to going in the two dimensions you can draw (easily).
Therefore, equipotential surfaces also have to exist in three dimensions, right? :)