Understanding Gauss' Law to Divergence and Charge Determination

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rockyshephear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Divergence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Gauss' Law, particularly in the context of electromagnetism, exploring its implications for charge determination and the nature of electric and magnetic fields. Participants raise questions about the interpretation of the law, its mathematical formulation, and the distinction between electric and magnetic Gauss' laws.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why Gauss' Law does not explicitly state that the charge inside a surface can be zero, suggesting that it seems to imply this is always the case.
  • Another participant clarifies that Gauss' Law allows for the determination of charge within a volume based on the electric field on its surface, indicating that the charge inside is not always zero.
  • A different participant draws an analogy between Gauss' Law and derivatives, pondering the utility of determining charge at specific points in space, given that charges are not static.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of charge density and how it relates to the concept of charge being treated as a continuous quantity rather than discrete points.
  • Participants reference the integral form of Gauss' Law for magnetism, noting that it states the net magnetic flux through a closed surface is always zero, and question its relation to charge.
  • One participant expresses confusion about mixing up the electric and magnetic forms of Gauss' Law and inquires about the effects of permeability on magnetic fields.
  • Another participant emphasizes that there is no magnetic charge, attributing magnetic fields to circulating electrons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of Gauss' Law, particularly regarding the presence of charge within a surface and the distinction between electric and magnetic fields. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the historical context of Gauss' Law, noting that the mathematics was developed before the quantization of charge was understood, which may influence current interpretations.

rockyshephear
Messages
232
Reaction score
0
I think after weeks of study, I'm finally getting a handle on Gauss' Law.

A few ? though.

The equation does not specifically state that there is not charge inside the surface. One may think that it doesn't matter if there or isn't...it's alway zero. How come that is not state in the equation somehow?

Second ?. So from what I think, Gauss' Law can be used to determine if a charge exists at an infinitesimal point just like derivate can be used to determine the slope of the tangent line at a point on a curve. Why would I want to know if a charge exists at point x,y,z? It's not like the universe is set in amber charges are just sitting at discrete places. They move around.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two Gauss' laws in EM. Which one are you talking about? If you're talking about the one involving E, then I don't know what you mean by "it's always zero" since divergence of E is not always zero. If you're talking about the one for magnetism, it doesn't involve any charge, so I still don't know what you're trying to ask.
 
rockyshephear said:
I think after weeks of study, I'm finally getting a handle on Gauss' Law.

A few ? though.

The equation does not specifically state that there is not charge inside the surface. One may think that it doesn't matter if there or isn't...it's alway zero. How come that is not state in the equation somehow?

Second ?. So from what I think, Gauss' Law can be used to determine if a charge exists at an infinitesimal point just like derivate can be used to determine the slope of the tangent line at a point on a curve. Why would I want to know if a charge exists at point x,y,z? It's not like the universe is set in amber charges are just sitting at discrete places. They move around.
Once the charges are set such that all the components of force parallel to the surface are nullified, they do not move around like marbles.
Maybe you are meaning that the surface is impermeable to electric lines of force there is no intensity on the inside of an infinite surface.
 
Last edited:
rockyshephear said:
The equation does not specifically state that there is not charge inside the surface. One may think that it doesn't matter if there or isn't...it's alway zero. How come that is not state in the equation somehow?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Gauss's law states that if there's charge inside a volume, you can figure out how much by measuring the electric field on the surface of the volume. Nowhere is it implied the charge inside is always zero.

Second ?. So from what I think, Gauss' Law can be used to determine if a charge exists at an infinitesimal point just like derivate can be used to determine the slope of the tangent line at a point on a curve. Why would I want to know if a charge exists at point x,y,z? It's not like the universe is set in amber charges are just sitting at discrete places. They move around.

You can't understand how something moves until you understand how it stays in place.

It may be helpful to understand that the mathematics of electrodynamics was worked out *before* scientists knew that charge was quantized. Gauss's mathematics treats charge as a continuous quantity. Instead of discrete, charged little balls, you are working with charge densities of volumes. (It's similar to the relationship between a "sum" and an "integral" in math).

Suppose I have a box which takes up 1 liter of volume, and I know it holds 1 coulomb of charge inside. Also assume the charge is spread EVENLY throughout the interior of the box. How much charge does the point at the center of the box have? The answer is "practically zero". It's infinitesimal. If you moved the center point outside of the box, it would in fact have zero coulombs of charge.

So instead, we talk about charge densities. A the center point in our box has a charge density of 1 coulomb per liter.

The cool thing about charge densities is that if we know the charge density of EVERY point in a volume, we can integrate and figure out the total charge of that volume.
 
Here's my reference:

The integral form of Gauss's law for magnetism states:

\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0

where

S is any closed surface (a "closed surface" is the boundary of some three-dimensional volume; the surface of a sphere or cube is a "closed surface", but a disk is not),
dA is a vector, whose magnitude is the area of an infinitesimal piece of the surface S, and whose direction is the outward-pointing surface normal (see surface integral for more details).

The left-hand side of this equation is called the net flux of the magnetic field out of the surface, and Gauss's law for magnetism states that it is always zero.

The integral and differential forms of Gauss's law for magnetism are mathematically equivalent, due to the divergence theorem. That said, one or the other might be more convenient to use in a particular computation.
 
Gauss' law for magnetism makes no reference to charge, so what did you mean by your first question?
 
Yea, I'm getting the two mixed up. So is magnetic field affected by permeability as electric field is?
 
rockyshephear said:
Here's my reference:

The integral form of Gauss's law for magnetism states:

\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0

where

S is any closed surface (a "closed surface" is the boundary of some three-dimensional volume; the surface of a sphere or cube is a "closed surface", but a disk is not),
dA is a vector, whose magnitude is the area of an infinitesimal piece of the surface S, and whose direction is the outward-pointing surface normal (see surface integral for more details).

The left-hand side of this equation is called the net flux of the magnetic field out of the surface, and Gauss's law for magnetism states that it is always zero.

The integral and differential forms of Gauss's law for magnetism are mathematically equivalent, due to the divergence theorem. That said, one or the other might be more convenient to use in a particular computation.

Are you talking about gauss's theorem in electrostatics or something else?
There is no magnetic charge, it is caused by circulating electrons.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Conditions for applying Gauss' Law
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Another way of stating Gauss' law?
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
5K
Undergrad Determining continuity using Gauss' law
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
Undergrad Gauss' law and an object with nonuniform charge distribution
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad What is Electric Flux and How is it Calculated?
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Undergrad Is it possible to apply Gauss' law to a Klein bottle?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Divergence of the Electric field of a charged circular ring
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad How Does Gauss's Law Apply to an Infinite Charged Rod?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Determining whether the non-integral form of Gauss' law applies
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K