Solving Electric Fields with Gauss's Law: Doubts and Calculations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on applying Gauss's Law to determine the electric field around two infinite parallel conducting plates with varying charge densities. The user expresses uncertainty about their calculations, particularly regarding the electric field above and below the plates, concluding it to be zero, which raises doubts. They correctly identify the need for Gaussian surfaces to analyze the electric field between the plates, where they calculate it as -2(σ2 - σ1)/ε0, indicating a downward direction. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding charge distribution on conductors and the implications of electrostatic equilibrium, suggesting that the electric field inside a conductor must be zero. The conversation highlights the necessity of careful selection of Gaussian surfaces and the significance of visualizing electric field directions.
Saketh
Messages
258
Reaction score
2
Hello, everyone. I have a problem that I solved using Gauss's Law. However, I am unconfident in my answers, as I have very little experience with Gauss's Law.

The surfaces of two large (i.e. infinite) parallel conducting plates have charge densities as follows: \sigma_1 on the top of the top plate; -\sigma_2 on the bottom of the top plate; \sigma_2 on the top of the bottom plate; -\sigma_1 on the bottom of the bottom plate; \sigma_1 > \sigma_2. Use Gauss's law and symmetry to calculate the electric field below, between, and above the plates.​
Here's how I did it:
I made a gaussian surface - a cylinder that cut through both of the plates with radius r - in order to find the electric field above and below the plates. Then, I used Gauss's law:
\oint \vec{E}\cdot \,d\vec{A} = E\oint \,dA = \frac{q_{inside}}{\epsilon_0}.
This is the part that I doubt myself:
E(\pi r^2 + \pi r^2) = \frac{\pi r^2(\sigma_1 - \sigma_2 + \sigma_2 - \sigma_1)}{\epsilon_0} = 0
So I concluded that below and above the plates the electric field was zero. But this did not make sense to me. Are my calculations correct? Did I put the gaussian surface in the correct place to find the electric field above and below the plates?

For between the plates, I made two different gaussian surfaces - one for each plate - that had one face in one plate and the other face in the space between the plates, such that the inside charge included both \sigma_1 and \sigma_2. But is this the correct gaussian surface, or am I supposed to make surfaces such that the \sigma_1's are left out? This is very confusing!

I continued, and eventually calculated that the electric field in between the plates is -\frac{2\sigma_2 - 2\sigma_1}{\epsilon_0}, which means that's it's going downward. Is this correct?

Thank you for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, draw a diagram and sketch the direction of the fields. Realize that in the section between the plates, the field must be equivalent to that of a parallel plate capacitor. Is the field zero there?

Secondly, what is the net charge enclosed by the Gaussian Surface that you have chosen? Do you know that on a conductor (in electrostatic equilibrium) charge can reside only on the surface and not in the bulk? Can you give an argument using Gauss's Law to justify this given that the field in the bulk of a conductor has to be zero in electrostatics?
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top