When is dA not integrated into A for Gauss' law?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter glennpagano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gauss Gauss' law Law
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Gauss' law, specifically when the differential area element dA can be integrated into the total area A. Participants explore scenarios where more complex integration may be necessary due to varying electric fields or non-perpendicular orientations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that many problems involving Gauss' law are simplified by symmetry, allowing for straightforward integration of dA into A.
  • It is proposed that the integral \(\int_{\mathcal{S}}\textbf{E}\cdot d\textbf{a}=|\textbf{E}|A\) holds true only when the electric field \textbf{E} is uniform and normal to the surface \(\mathcal{S}\).
  • Questions are raised about the implications when the electric field is not perpendicular, suggesting that the integral would involve a cosine factor, but the necessity of further integration is uncertain.
  • A counterexample is provided where a uniform electric field in the z-direction integrated over a spherical surface yields zero, challenging the assumption that cosine can be factored out in all cases.
  • Participants discuss the limitations of Gauss' law in finding the electric field, emphasizing that it is most effective in cases with symmetry where \textbf{E} is both uniform and orthogonal to the surface.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which dA can be integrated into A, with some asserting that it is valid only under specific circumstances, while others present counterexamples that suggest more complexity is involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the general applicability of these principles.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the symmetry of the problem and the uniformity of the electric field, as well as the unresolved nature of integrating non-perpendicular fields.

glennpagano
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I have been studying Gauss' law and almost all of the problems I have been doing just have me integrate dA alone into A. I was wondering when do you actually have to do some more in depth integration.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problems are usually set up with some nice symmetry so you can do the integral trivially. If your area was some crazy shape, or if your b field was not constant then you would actually have to integrate.
 
In general,

[tex]\int_{\mathcal{S}}\textbf{E}\cdot d\textbf{a}=|\textbf{E}|A[/tex]

is only true when [itex]\textbf{E}[/itex] is uniform (constant) over the surface [itex]\mathcal{S}[/itex], and normal (orthogonal/perpendicular) to [itex]\mathcal{S}[/itex] at every point on the surface.
 
What if it is not perpendicular? Then you will have E[tex]\oint cos \phi dA[/tex]. Then you can just pull out the cosine then because it is constant when compared to dA. If the E is not constant then will you still have to integrate it? Do you have to make it with respect to dA first? The more info the better. Right now, for most occasions I see Gauss' law as EA=q/epsilon naught.
 
glennpagano said:
What if it is not perpendicular? Then you will have E[tex]\oint cos \phi dA[/tex]. Then you can just pull out the cosine then because it is constant when compared to dA.

That isn't nessecarily true. As a simple counterexample, consider a uniform E-field in the z-direction, [itex]\textbf{E}=E_0\mathbf{\hat{z}}[/itex] and integrate over a spherical surface of radius [itex]R[/itex].

[tex]\begin{aligned}\int_{\mathcal{S}}\textbf{E}\cdot d\textbf{a} &= E_0\int_0^{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\mathbf{\hat{z}}\cdot (R^2\sin\theta d\theta d\phi \mathbf{\hat{r}}) \\ &=E_0\int_0^{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}R^2\sin\theta \cos\theta d\theta d\phi \\ & = 0 \\ &\neq 4\pi R^2E_0\cos\theta\end{aligned}[/tex]

If the E is not constant then will you still have to integrate it? Do you have to make it with respect to dA first? The more info the better. Right now, for most occasions I see Gauss' law as EA=q/epsilon naught.

Gauss' Law (in integral form) is really only useful (for finding [itex]\textbf{E}[/itex]) in those special cases where, due to symmetry, you can find a surface where [itex]\textbf{E}[/itex] is uniform over the surface and orthogonal to it at every point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K