What is Electrical Field in a Closed surface with no charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Gauss's Law, which states that the net electric flux through a closed surface is zero if no charge is enclosed. However, this does not imply that the electric field intensity is also zero; it can vary across the surface. A zero net flux indicates that the electric field may point inward on one half of the surface and outward on the other, leading to a cancellation of flux. The participants clarify that additional information, such as symmetry, is necessary to determine the electric field's behavior. Ultimately, the electric field at the Gaussian surface is not zero, despite the zero net flux.
Prateek Kumar Jain
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
As per the Gauss Law , Net Flux Electric Field through a closed Surface (Gaussian Surface) is zero if no charge is enclosed.

As per the definition of the Electrical Flux = Electrical Field Intensity dot product Area Vector i.e. Closed Integral of E.S

If Electrical Flux is zero then as per the definition of Electric Flux above , Electric Field intensity through the Gaussian Surface should also be zero, which is not so as shown in the figure below

IMG_20160609_074231~2.jpg


Please clarify why the two results are opposite and which one is correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Prateek Kumar Jain said:
If Electrical Flux is zero then as per the definition of Electric Flux above , Electric Field intensity through the Gaussian Surface should also be zero,
This is not necessarily correct. A zero net flux could mean that the field is zero everywhere, or it could mean that it points inward on one half and outward on the other half.

Usually you need some more information, like symmetry, in order to make the inference from 0 net flux to 0 field.
 
  • Like
Likes cnh1995 and Delta2
In your hand writing text you do the mistake in the line ##E\oint dS=0## this is not correct in your example of the sphere inside a uniform field E. The field E is not always perpendicular to the surface element and even when it is, it doesn't have the same direction with the direction of the normal of the surface element.

What happens in your example is that the flux at the left half of the sphere is negative and cancels the flux at the right half which is equal but positive.(remember the positive direction for the normal to the surface element is the one that points outwards from the closed surface.)
 
I agree and now I understand my mistake that I was considering Electric Field to be normal to each and every surface element of the Sphere which is not so. Hence Electric Field at the Gaussian surface (Sphere) will not be zero.

Thank you for your explanation Mr. Dale and Delta
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...

Similar threads

Back
Top