Question Concerning Gauss' Law

AI Thread Summary
Gauss' law states that the electric flux through a closed surface is proportional to the enclosed charge, specifically 4π times the charge in the Centimeter-Gram-Second system. The discussion clarifies that the change in electric field across a layer of charge relates to the surface charge density (σ), with the difference in field strength being 4πσ. This relationship applies specifically to the normal components of the electric field across the surface of the charge layer. The net flux through a closed surface containing a charge sheet is proportional to the area and the charge density, leading to the conclusion that the electric field difference is proportional to σ. The conversation emphasizes that these principles are part of the boundary conditions in electromagnetism, often covered in textbooks.
jslam
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm reading the book "Electricity and Magnetism: Vol. II" by Edward M. Purcell, in which he describes Gauss' law as stating that the flux through a closed surface is 4π times the enclosed charge (he uses the Centimeter-Gram-Second system).
Later, he refers to Gauss' law as stating that the change in field from one side of a layer to the other must be 4πσ, where σ is the charge density in the layer.
I don't see the relation. Maybe it's an obvious corollary of Gauss' law, but in any case I don't understand how.

The offending text can be found here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/270469221/offending_passage.pdf
The bad news actually only starts in section 1.14 (on the second page), but the first page is included because it get reffered to in the one of the two offending passage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is this "layer" that you are talking about?
 
Sorry. It's a layer of charge. The cases referred to here are an infinite flat sheet of charge with uniform charge density, a spherical shell of charge with uniform charge density and then finally any old layer of charge, saying in each case that from one side of the layer of charge to the other, there has to be a difference in field of 4πσ. I don't know if you read the attached PDF (or if you weren't able to for some reason, in which case let me know), but it explains it all.
 
Oh well that's a correct description then, except it only applies to the component of the fields normal to the surface. The net flux over any closed surface is proportional to the amount of charge in the enclosed volume, via Gauss' law. So if I enclose a sheet of charge of charge density \sigma, then the net flux will be proportional to the product of the enclosed area of the charge sheet times \sigma. So, just take the surface integral to the limit case where the thickness of the volume (thickness is normal to the charge sheet) goes to zero. Now, the enclosed "volume" is the charge sheet, the flux is now the area times the difference between the normal electric fields on the opposite sides of the sheets, this is still proportional to the area times \sigma. So the areas cancel out and you are left with the relationship that the difference between components of an electric field normal to a surface on either side of the surface are proportional to the charge density of any bound charges on that surface.

Another note though is that the general case deals with the electric flux density, sometimes called the displacement field, and not the electric field. This case deals with bound charges that collect on the surface between different materials. The case where we are talking strictly about the electric field only applies to a homogeneous medium.

This is one of what are known as the boundary conditions and are discussed in most electromagnetic textbooks.

http://www.amanogawa.com/archive/docs/EM5.pdf
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

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