Solving for Charge Position from Flux and Gaussian Surface

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alem2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused Flux
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around confusion regarding the relationship between electric flux and charge position using Gauss's law. The original poster is unsure if they can determine the location of a charge solely from the flux and dimensions of a Gaussian surface. It is clarified that there are two definitions of flux, with the second being a generalization applicable to various surfaces, while the first is limited to flat surfaces. Additionally, the radius used in Gauss's law refers to the Gaussian surface rather than the distance to the charge itself. This distinction helps resolve the confusion about the calculations involved.
Alem2000
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
I was a bit confused by a homwork problem that I was working on. The problem is that I found the flux of a charge and I know the demsions of the Gaussian surface it is encolsed in. It doesn't seem right intuitively to be able to find the location of the charge from this information...but mathmatically I am thinking I can solve for r.
\Phi=\oint _\mathcal{S} \mathbf{E}\cdot d\mathbf{a} = \frac{q_{enc}}{\epsilon _0}
and since electric field is the flux over the area i can find it by
E=\Phi/A
so shouldn't I be able to find the position fo the charge from
\Phi/A=q/4\pi r^2 \epsilon_0
this is really confusing, do I have the theory wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you have two different definitions for flux:

\Phi = E A

and

\Phi=\oint \vec{E}\cdot \vec{da}

Notice how the second definition is a generalization of the first one. The first equation only applies to flat surfaces which are perpendicular to the field, the second definition works in general.

Also, the r that you pulled out of Gauss' law is the radius of a spherical Gaussian surface (an hence the place you are looking at the field) , not "the distance to the charge".
 
THANK YOU, that makes a lot more sense now!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top