Permitivity electric field relation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between electric field (E), electric displacement (D), and permittivity (ε). It highlights that E is inversely proportional to permittivity, suggesting that higher permittivity results in a smaller electric field for the same charge configuration. However, the conversation also references sources indicating that higher permittivity allows for greater electric flux due to polarization effects, implying a stronger electric field. This creates a contradiction in understanding the relationship between E and permittivity. The participant seeks clarification on this apparent inconsistency in the fundamental concepts.
efe
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

D=εE, and E=Q/(4πεr^2). We may suppose generally that, E is inverse proportional to permittivity. Combining the interpretation to the first equation, E is dependent variable, and D is the independent variable. That is, D is medium dependent. Anyway, E is dependent on the permittivity characteristic of the medium and this relation is inverse. Due to this inverse relation, we would expect that for mediums with higher permittivity, same configuration of charges will have smaller electric field(where D will not change).

However it says, "The larger the tendency for charge distortion (also called electric polarization), the larger the value of the permittivity." in "http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452314/permittivity" and it says "More electric flux exists in a medium with a high permittivity (per unit charge) because of polarization effects." in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity". Due to these explanations, higher permitivity is allowing more electric flux can be generated, which implies stronger electric field. Therefore according to these, E is direct proportional to permittivity.

I am missing a point,probably an easy and a basic one, but i don't know which. So what is the correct explanation?

Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I made a mistake in:
"D is medium dependent"
I correct it to:
"D is medium independent"
 
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...
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top