I Investigating the 1d Equation: Charges & Field Disparity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Noki Lee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    1d Charges Field
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the application of the 1D equation (dE/dx = λ/ε0) to analyze electric fields between charge densities. It highlights a misunderstanding regarding the behavior of the electric field, which points in opposite directions on either side of the charges, leading to a zero field between them. The necessity of incorporating a constant of integration based on boundary conditions is emphasized for accurate graph representation. The conversation clarifies that the initial intuition about the field's behavior was incorrect. Ultimately, the participants reach an understanding of how to correctly apply the equation and adjust the graph accordingly.
Noki Lee
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Can we apply the 1d equation (dE/dx = labmda/epsilon0)dEdx=λϵ0 to the first and the second figures?
1.PNG

But, in the 2nd case,
2.png


if we integrate the charge density, some field exists between the two charge densities. Intuitively, it should be like the last figure.
What's wrong with this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your intuition is wrong. The E-field on the left and right point in opposite directions. This is what you get in your case (1) if you add a (negative) constant of integration so E is zero between the two charges.
 
phyzguy said:
Your intuition is wrong. The E-field on the left and right point in opposite directions. This is what you get in your case (1) if you add a (negative) constant of integration so E is zero between the two charges.
3.png

I mistook the intuition, did you mean this figure?

But why we can't apply the above 1D equation?
 
Yes, I mean that figure. You can use the above 1D equation, but when you do the integration, you always have a constant of integration that you have to determine from the boundary conditions. So your graph (1) needs to have a negative constant added to it so it looks like the graph (2) in post #3. Do you understand?
 
phyzguy said:
Yes, I mean that figure. You can use the above 1D equation, but when you do the integration, you always have a constant of integration that you have to determine from the boundary conditions. So your graph (1) needs to have a negative constant added to it so it looks like the graph (2) in post #3. Do you understand?
I got it, thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
499
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
73
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K