Why use E=ρ/ε0 in conductors but not in dielectrics

[neelakash]

A little bit of confusion:

Is it not correct to write ▼. E=ρ/ε0 inside a dielectric body.
As far as I know we should write ε instead of ε0.[where ε=εr*ε0]
Then why do we write ▼. E=ρ/ε0 inside a conductor?

 

[lalbatros]

Are the dimensions correct in this equation: E=ρ/ε0 ?
I don't think so since an electric field from a charge is given by:

E = q/(4 pi ε0 r²) and since q/r² is no a charge density.

This can also be looked at from physical point of view.

 

[neutrino]

Are the dimensions correct in this equation: E=ρ/ε0 ?
I don't think so since an electric field from a charge is given by:

E = q/(4 pi ε0 r²) and since q/r² is no a charge density.

This can also be looked at from physical point of view.

He is referring to the differential form of Gauss' Law. I think you are not seeing the $\nabla$ in the OP, it seems to be black inverted triangle.

 

[ZapperZ]

A little bit of confusion:

Is it not correct to write ▼. E=ρ/ε0 inside a dielectric body.
As far as I know we should write ε instead of ε0.[where ε=εr*ε0]
Then why do we write ▼. E=ρ/ε0 inside a conductor?

When you deal with dielectrics, use D instead of E. This would be the most general form and will be true, even when you "simplify" it to the vacuum case. Only in the end do you need to do a quick conversion to E. This way, you don't have to worry about all your permitivity.

Zz.

 

[neelakash]

When you deal with dielectrics, use D instead of E. This would be the most general form and will be true, even when you "simplify" it to the vacuum case. Only in the end do you need to do a quick conversion to E. This way, you don't have to worry about all your permitivity.

Yes!that is a way to avoid the uneasiness.

But my question is why I can write ▼. E=ρ/ε0 inside a conductor?

 

[ZapperZ]

But my question is why I can write ▼. E=ρ/ε0 inside a conductor?

Because BY DEFINITION, under an electrostatic condition, E=0 inside a conductor.

Zz.