Infintite plane of charge guass law

  • Thread starter Thread starter kiwileaf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Law Plane
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the application of Gauss's law to an infinite plane of charge. The key point is that when calculating the charge enclosed by a Gaussian cylinder, only the area of the end caps is considered, as the electric field is perpendicular to the sides of the cylinder, resulting in no flux through those surfaces. The charge enclosed is calculated as q=σA, where σ is the surface charge density and A is the area of the end caps. This approach clarifies that the charge is not integrated over the entire volume of the cylinder, but rather only over the area intersecting the plane. The participants confirm that this understanding resolves the confusion regarding the charge calculation.
kiwileaf
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
when deriving the electric field through using gauss's law, I do not completely understand why when
calculating for the charge enclosed the answer key says
"The surface charge distribution on is uniform. The area of the intersection of he non-conducting plane with the Gaussian cylinder is equal to the area of the end-caps, . Therefore the charge enclosed in the cylinder is q=σA"

I thought that the total charge would be the integral of sigma with respect to the volume of a cylinder (dv), which would make the total charge enclosed q=σV

However, even if it is q=σA I do not understand why we would not include the entire area of the cylinder because wouldn't the charge be over that entire Gaussian surface? why do we disregard the sides and only include the end caps for area?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(this is for an infinite plane of charge with a uniformly distributed positive charge density σ) and using Gaussian surface of a cylinder where the infinite plan is at x=0 and the two sides of the cylnider extend to include x<0 and x>0
 
We disregard the area of the sides because the normal vectors to the sides (, i.e. the curved part) is perpendicular to the electric field vector... It means no flux passes through the curved part of the cylinder.
 
Aniruddha@94 said:
We disregard the area of the sides because the normal vectors to the sides (, i.e. the curved part) is perpendicular to the electric field vector... It means no flux passes through the curved part of the cylinder.
I understand that when computing the integral of E dot dA the E dot dA of the sides would be zero, but I was talking about simply calculating and integrating the amount of charge enclosed (but I think I understand that the charge enclosed would be the σ times the area of the circle of the cylinder that intersects the plane not a three dimensional volume where the sides are included)
 
So that clears it out for you?
 
kiwileaf said:
I understand that when computing the integral of E dot dA the E dot dA of the sides would be zero, but I was talking about simply calculating and integrating the amount of charge enclosed (but I think I understand that the charge enclosed would be the σ times the area of the circle of the cylinder that intersects the plane not a three dimensional volume where the sides are included)
Yes, you've got it. We take ( sigma)X(end area) because that's the only part of the sheet inside the cylinder.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...

Similar threads

Replies
83
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top