Solving Electric Fields in Surface Charge Density Problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter latentcorpse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Couple
latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
ok if you could just tell em if this sounds alright.

(i) A large horizontal sheet of surface charge density \sigma has a hole of radius b cout out of it. Find the electric field directly above the centre of the hole.

I already have expressions for the electric field due to the sheet and the disc of radius b on their own - can i just use the principle of superposition to subtract the field of the disc of radius b from the field of the sheet to get the total electric field?

(ii) By applying a Gaussian pillbox to an infinitely large charged sheet of surface charge density \sigma, I obtained \vec{E(z)} = \frac{\sigma}{2 \epsilon_0} \vec{z} for the electric field. I am now asked why this field would double if the same charge were placed on the surface of a conductor.

I have a feeling this is because in the conductor the charges inside arrange themselves to give a net internal field of 0 and then this arrangement of the charges would cause a field to be generated outside the conductor equal to the initial external field, hence doubling it as a result of the superposition principle.

How do these ideas sound?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
latentcorpse said:
... can i just use the principle of superposition to subtract the field of the disc of radius b from the field of the sheet to get the total electric field?
Of course you can.
 
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