Why Can't I Use My Indicated Vector ds on a Gaussian Surface?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriate use of the vector dS on a Gaussian surface in the context of calculating electric flux. Participants explore the conditions under which dS must be defined and its relationship to the geometry of the surface involved, specifically focusing on a cylindrical Gaussian surface.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of their indicated vector dS on the Gaussian surface, seeking clarification.
  • Another participant asserts that dS must be perpendicular to the surface and outward from a closed surface, noting that the indicated arrows on the end caps are parallel rather than perpendicular.
  • A different participant emphasizes the necessity of calculating the flux through each side of the Gaussian surface, highlighting that the vector dS must be drawn correctly for the caps and that the radial vector is appropriate for the cylindrical surface.
  • This participant also points out that the electric field is perpendicular to dS for the cylindrical part, resulting in zero contribution to the flux from that section.
  • Another participant reiterates the previous points, clarifying the direction of electric field lines in relation to the Gaussian surface.
  • A final participant expresses gratitude for the insights gained from the discussion, indicating a positive reception of the explanations provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the requirement that dS must be perpendicular to the surface. However, there is some contention regarding the specific application of this principle to the Gaussian surface in question, particularly concerning the contributions from different sections of the surface.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of correctly defining vector dS in relation to the geometry of the Gaussian surface and the electric field. There are unresolved aspects regarding the implications of the electric field's orientation and its effect on the flux calculation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism and the application of Gaussian surfaces in flux calculations.

logearav
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
folks,
in my attached image, why can't i take the vector ds as indicated by me in pencil. i am confused. help will be greatly appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • phy.jpg
    phy.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 481
Physics news on Phys.org
dS must always be perpendicular to the surface, and outward from a closed surface. Your arrows on the end caps are parallel to the end caps, not perpendicular.
 
It is often glossed over in calculations like these that you actually have to calculate the flux through every side of a Gaussian surface. There are three 'different' surfaces in this case. The two caps and the cylinder itself. The vector d\vec{s} is always perpendicular to the surface. For the two caps this means you have to draw them as they are drawn in the picture. The directions are of course reversed.

For the cilinder the vector d\vec{s} is the one you have drawn, the radial vector. This one is perpendicular to the surface of the cylinder at any point. The reason why this one usually doesn't get drawn or taken into account is that the electric field is perpendicular to ds in this case, which means \vec{E} \cdot d\vec{s}=0.
 
What they said.

The electric field lines would all be horizontal pointing to the right on the right side of the sheet, and pointing left on the left side. So no E field lines would "penetrate" the curved part (cylinder) of your chosen Guassian surface, they would all run parallel to it.
 
Thanks a lot friends. I visited so many sites but could not get the answer. This proves that this site is full of brains. Thanks again...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K