Why Don't the Electric Fields Match at the Boundary in Gauss's Law Calculation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kingwinner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gauss's law Law
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around the application of Gauss's Law to a problem involving a long thin straight wire and a hollow metal cylinder with specified linear charge densities. Participants are exploring the electric field strengths and directions both inside and outside the cylinder, particularly at the boundary where the two regions meet.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate the electric fields inside and outside the cylinder using Gaussian surfaces, but expresses confusion regarding the continuity of the electric fields at the boundary. They question the use of the term "linear charge density" for a three-dimensional object and seek clarification on the direction of the electric field.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights regarding the calculations and the nature of the electric field across the boundary. There is an acknowledgment that the electric field may not be continuous due to the presence of surface charge on the cylinder. Multiple interpretations of charge density and electric field direction are being explored, indicating a productive dialogue.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating potential misunderstandings regarding charge density terminology and the implications of positive charges in the context of electric field direction. The original poster's concern about the use of the cylinder's radius in calculations is also noted.

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
I am very confused by this tough question. I hope some experts of Gauss's Law can help me out! Any help is greatly appreciated!

1) A long thin straight wire with linear charge ensity lambda runs down the centre of a thin hollow metal cylinder of radius R. The cylinder has a net linear charge density (2*lambda). Take lambda as positive. Find the electric field (strengh & direction)
a) inside the cylinder (r<R)
b) outside the cylinder (r>R)


For part b (r>R), I picked a coaxial cylinder with a radius r>R and of lengt L as the Gaussian surface

E=(Q_enclosed)/(A)(epsilon_o)
E=(lambda)L+2(lambda)L/(A)(epsilon_o)
E=3(lambda)L/(2pi*r*L)(epsilon_o)
E=3(lambda)/(2pi*r)(epsilon_o) [direction: radially outward]

Is this the correct answer Note that the radius of the hollow cylinder "R" is not used in any part of my calculation...did I do something wrong?

For part a, I got the electric field strength for r<R as [lambda/(2pi*epsilon_o*r)], and when I try to substitute r=R into the answers from part a & b, the electric fields DON'T match at the boundary...which further lowers my confidence of being right. But which part did I do it wrong? I can't find my error...Does anyone know how to solve this problem?

By the way, how come they use the term LINEAR charge density for a 3-dimensional hollow cylinder? Say, for example, if a certain hollow cylinder has a linear charge density of 2 C/m, what does it actually mean? A cylinder is definitely NOT a line...


Thank you again!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
One more question, for part a, will the electric field also be pointing radially OUTWARD? There are many positive charges surrounding, so wouldn't the electric field be pointing IN?
 
There is no error. You did use R in the calculation. It tells you where one solution begins and another ends. There is a surface charge on the cylinder, so you shouldn't expect the electric field to be continuous across it. The phrase 'linear charge density' just means that they are giving charge per length rather than the charge per area. That's all.
 
kingwinner said:
One more question, for part a, will the electric field also be pointing radially OUTWARD? There are many positive charges surrounding, so wouldn't the electric field be pointing IN?

Positive charges? I thought charge density was measured in coulombs per something. And a coulomb was an amount of negative charge. So positive charge density actually mean negative charge. But I could be confused. One could always look it up, right?
 
according to my textbook and my notes, positive charge density is definitely used for positive charges
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K