Why Do We Keep the 2x(hat) for E3?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the reasoning behind retaining the 2x(hat) component for E3 in the context of electric field calculations. The user initially expresses confusion regarding the application of boundary conditions and the behavior of electric field components across charge densities. Ultimately, the user resolves their misunderstanding, acknowledging the need for clarity in the problem statement and the unconventional nature of the problem presented.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric field components and their behavior across charge densities
  • Familiarity with boundary conditions in electrostatics
  • Knowledge of vector notation in physics, specifically unit vectors like x(hat), y(hat), and z(hat)
  • Basic principles of electrostatics and charge distribution
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the application of boundary conditions in electrostatics
  • Study the behavior of electric fields across different charge densities
  • Learn about vector calculus in the context of electromagnetism
  • Examine unconventional problem statements in physics for better comprehension
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism and electric field theory, as well as anyone seeking to clarify complex problem statements in electrostatics.

Marcin H
Messages
306
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


Screen Shot 2017-09-23 at 7.25.46 PM.png


Screen Shot 2017-09-25 at 3.45.49 PM.png


Find E1, E3, and ps2

Homework Equations


boundary conditions

The Attempt at a Solution



(these are class notes)[/B]
I understand how to find E1, but I am a bit confused about the reasoning behind finding E3... Why do we leave the 2x(hat) for E3...? I though that only tangential components of E don't change across a charge density, but the normal does change which is why we have to use boundary conditions and n (dot) (D1-D2)... But we don't have ps here so we can't use that. Why do we keep the 2x(hat)? I get the y(hat) and z(hat) part because they are tangential, but not the x(hat).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem statement that you posted is somewhat unconventional. Can you clarify it using a few more English words?
 
kuruman said:
The problem statement that you posted is somewhat unconventional. Can you clarify it using a few more English words?
I figured it out. I was in a hurry and forgot to explain the problem at the top. Sorry bout that!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K