Using Gauss's Law on two separated, and infinite plates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on applying Gauss's Law to determine the electric field around two parallel, nonconducting sheets with equal positive charge density. It is clarified that while the electric fields from the sheets cancel each other out in the space between them, they add up outside the sheets, resulting in a net electric field. The direction of the electric field is emphasized, with lines originating from the positively charged sheets and extending outward. The confusion regarding the calculation of the net electric field is addressed, highlighting the importance of considering the direction of electric fields. Ultimately, the conclusion reinforces that there is no electric field between the plates, while an electric field exists outside.
erick rocha
Messages
2
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The figure shows cross-sections through two large, parallel, nonconducting sheets with identical distributions of positive charge with surface charge density σ = 1.06 × 10-22 C/m2. What is the y component of the electric field at points (a) above the sheets, (b) between them, and (c) below them?

Homework Equations



So since they have equal surface density, and their postive polarities are opposite of each other, I would think that they electric fields would just cancell each other out right? Appereantly not. Their elecctric field hace equal magnitude in opposite direction. Why would the doward compnent cancel the upward component?

The Attempt at a Solution


The E field in the in between the plates is zero since the inside component cancel each other out.
On the ouside...
E(net)= E(top)-E(bottom)
=σ/2ε-σ/2ε
=0
But the answer is actually
=σ/ε
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-04-03 at 4.05.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-04-03 at 4.05.09 PM.png
    1.3 KB · Views: 1,059
  • Screen Shot 2016-04-03 at 4.05.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-04-03 at 4.05.09 PM.png
    1.3 KB · Views: 863
  • Like
Likes BvU
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello erick, :welcome:

I wonder why you write E(net)= E(top)-E(bottom) instead of E(net)= E(top) + E(bottom). Are you aware the ##\vec E## field has a direction ? I think you are: after all, you let them cancel in the space between the plates. So what are the directions above both plates ? And below both plates ?
 
  • Like
Likes erick rocha
BvU said:
Hello erick, :welcome:

I wonder why you write E(net)= E(top)-E(bottom) instead of E(net)= E(top) + E(bottom). Are you aware the ##\vec E## field has a direction ? I think you are: after all, you let them cancel in the space between the plates. So what are the directions above both plates ? And below both plates ?
Thanks for the welcome and the response BuV!
Conventionally we say that the E Field goes from positive to negative and since there is no field inside the object that must mean the E field vector from the top plate with a positively charge surface a must be pointing towards the positive y-axis towards infinity. Also the bottom plate of the bottom surface, that is also positively charged, must be pointing towards the negative y-axis towards infinity. The same logic as why the E field vectors in the middle canceled out.
 
erick rocha said:
Conventionally we say that the E Field goes from positive to negative and since there is no field inside the object that must mean the E field vector from the top plate with a positively charge surface a must be pointing towards the positive y-axis towards infinity
How about reasoning the other way around: E-field points away from positive charge, therefore the two (identical magnitude) contributions cancel in between and add up outside both plates !
 
Review a Gaussian pillbox for a (single) non-conducting sheet and the derivation of the electric
field on either side of the sheet.
Now, as you have surmised, there can be no field between the two parallel sheets.
Now consider the fact that electric field lines originate on positive charges and end
on negative charges (they have to go somewhere).
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top