Potential in a conductor within an external field

AI Thread Summary
When a conductor is placed in an external uniform electric field, charges are induced on its surface, distributing in a way that nullifies the internal electric field. This results in the surface of the conductor being equipotential, despite the presence of induced charges. The potential difference created by the charge distribution on the conductor is countered by the external field, leading to no net potential difference across the surface. For the conductor to remain in equilibrium, the electric field inside must be zero, which necessitates a constant potential throughout the conductor. Ultimately, the initial misunderstanding about charge separation and potential gradient is clarified by recognizing the balance between induced charges and the external field.
lormanti
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Just got a doubt, which is probably silly but nonetheless cannot solve.
Say you have a conductor placed in an external uniform electric field. We know that charges will be induced on the conductor and distribute on its surface as to nullify the field inside the conductor. Then, at equilibrium, the conductor surface is equipotential: but, because of the induced charges due to the external field, should not we have that one side of the conductor has, say, excess postive charge and the other end negative ones, hence a difference in potential on the surface?

Thanks
Lor
 
Physics news on Phys.org
but if I am correct, then the difference in potential contradicts the fact that the conductor's surface must be equipotential, doesn't it?
 
lormanti said:
Hi,
... because of the induced charges due to the external field, should not we have that one side of the conductor has, say, excess postive charge and the other end negative ones, hence a difference in potential on the surface?

The potential difference due to the charge distribution cancels the potential difference due to the external field. Net, actual effect: no potential difference.
 
Reiterating what redbelly said. When you are looking at just the charge distribution on the conductor and saying there should be a potential difference there you are not looking at the net effect anymore you are then neglecting to include the external field that induced the charge separation in the first place and the effect this external field has on the potential.

The electric field is the negative gradient of potential. If you agree that for the conductor to be in equilibrium the net E field inside the conductor must be zero (if its not, it has not reached equilibrium yet) then the potential has to be the same constant everywhere in the conductor otherwise the gradient of the potential would not be zero and you would have a non zero E field and therefore not in equilibrium.
 
Ok, guys, you persuaded me. I guess I was misled by the charge separation being induced by the external electric field, so naively I thought: excess charge present at the two ends of the conductor = potential gradient, but obviously it is not like that.

Thanks a lot for your time, much appreciated.
Lor
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top