Proof that all excess-charge resides at surface of perfect-conductor

  • Thread starter Thread starter bjnartowt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Surface
bjnartowt
Messages
265
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



Use Gauss’s theorem and \oint {{\bf{E}} \bullet d{\bf{l}}} \equiv 0 to prove: any excess charge placed on a conductor must lie entirely on its surface. (A conductor, by definition, contains charges capable of moving freely under action of applied electric fields.


Homework Equations



Gauss's Law and \oint {{\bf{E}} \bullet d{\bf{l}}} \equiv 0

The Attempt at a Solution



Consider an amorphous body of charge in some perfect-conductor, arranged arbitrarily. Do not yet assume that all charge resides at the surface. Associated with this body is a closed surface “S” defining a volume “V”:

[draws figure of blobby volume, and blobby charge inside]

Now: consider applying Gauss’s Law to a Gaussian sphere of radius “r” enclosing just a tip of this Q blob of charge:

[same two blobs as before, except Gaussian sphere enclosing part of the charge...key detail is that some charge is inside and some charge is outside]

The force on the blue-coloured bits of charge outside the Gaussian surface…let’s call the amount of charge Qout. Thus: the enclosed amount of charge is Q – Qout, and we use that in Gauss’s Law:

\int {{\bf{\vec E}} \bullet d{\bf{\vec A}}} = \frac{{{Q_{encl}}}}{{{\varepsilon _0}}} = \frac{{Q - {Q_{out}}}}{{{\varepsilon _0}}} \to {\bf{\vec E}} = \frac{{Q - {Q_{out}}}}{{4\pi {\varepsilon _0}{r^2}}}

Suppose we are dealing with positive charge inside, for simplicity. Then: it is always true that:

Q - {Q_{out}} > 0

Therefore: the electric field always points in this direction:

{\bf{\vec E}} = \left| {{\bf{\vec E}}} \right|( + {\bf{\hat r}})

The force on any element of charge, then, is given by the usual F = qE in differential form (but not in preparation for integration...just for emphasizing the arbitrariness of the dQ that is part of Q[out] we put outside our Gauss-sphere):
d{\bf{\vec F}} = dQ \cdot {\bf{\vec E}} = dQ \cdot \left| {{\bf{\vec E}}} \right|( + {\bf{\hat r}})

…which is always +r-ward…that is, outward radially. Finally: since electromagnetism is invariant under charge-inversion, we can make the same conclusion no matter the sign of “Q” and “Qout”.

...But perhaps that only proves that charge begins to diffuse outwards? What happens after the process continues a bit, and perhaps we get this Gaussian hollow-sphere? A skeptic of my proof could think of an infinite array of charge-geometries that are not "all at the surface", and try to thwart these conclusions. I don't know how to design a proof to handle all of the infinitude of such thwarting geometries.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Step 1: Use Gauss's Law to show that qencl. = 0

Of course, this proves that the sum of all the charges inside the conductor is zero, not that there is no charge whatsoever inside. So you go to the next step.

Step 2: Assume that you have charge +q somewhere inside and charge -q somewhere else inside. Use the the fact that the conductor is an equipotential to show that the line integral from one charge to the other cannot be zero in that case.
 
kuruman said:
Step 1: Use Gauss's Law to show that qencl. = 0

Of course, this proves that the sum of all the charges inside the conductor is zero, not that there is no charge whatsoever inside. So you go to the next step.

Step 2: Assume that you have charge +q somewhere inside and charge -q somewhere else inside. Use the the fact that the conductor is an equipotential to show that the line integral from one charge to the other cannot be zero in that case.

Wait...all this stuff you're saying suggests that my conductor is charge-neutral. It has an excess charge. I mean, I could assume that I have +q somewhere, and -q somewhere else, but beyond that there is an excess +/- Q[encl] that is not equal to zero. ...Right?
 
bjnartowt said:
Wait...all this stuff you're saying suggests that my conductor is charge-neutral. It has an excess charge. I mean, I could assume that I have +q somewhere, and -q somewhere else, but beyond that there is an excess +/- Q[encl] that is not equal to zero. ...Right?
No such suggestion. In step 1 your Gaussian surface is parallel to the surface of the conductor at infinitesimal distance ε below it. What is the integral

\int\vec{E}\cdot d \vec{A}

under the circumstances?
 
\int\vec{E}\cdot d \vec{A} = 0

...because Q[encl] = 0; the charge enclosed by a Gaussian surface just below that charged-skin of the conductor would be zero.

Alright, so we are on the same page: a conductor with no excess charge.

However: I'm worried that the integral above is zero only by assuming what I'm trying to prove. :-|
 
bjnartowt said:
However: I'm worried that the integral above is zero only by assuming what I'm trying to prove. :-|
You are assuming what you are trying to prove. The integral is zero because the field inside the conductor (and therefore on the Gaussian surface) is zero. Therefore the charge enclosed by the surface is zero. In the limit ε→0, any net charge on the conductor has to be on the surface. See how it works?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top