This thread is closed

Right, am battling with EM and I have a query (thought this was best place to ask and get your attention!!!) I'm trying to find the electric field due to a line charge with uniform density λ coulombs/m. I want to solve it using Gauss' Law (it's much easier than using superposition principle). I know I need to draw a cylindrical Gaussian Surface surrounding the line charge and then use cylindrical coordinates. My question is, why do we not need to consider the electric field out of the ends of the cylinder? I know (according to Feynman ) that the flux through the two ends are zero - because they're in opposite directions and cancel? However, surely if you draw the coordinate system so that z is along the axis, then there will be an electric field out of the ends? If someone could explain this to me, it would really help as I know how to do the rest of the calculation (as we should only have a radial electric field ie. Er, since Ez=0 & Eθ=0).

Thanks guys

Thanks guys

Scroll to see replies

I think you're trying to ask "Why is the electric field radial about the line of charge?".

If that's your question, then you simply remember we're working with electrostatics, and so none of the charges should be moving. Now let us suppose we have a non-radial electric field....that would mean the charges experience a sideways force along the wire (or whatever) and so would move. They would actually move until they are aligned such that there is only radial electric field...there can only be radial field because otherwise the charges would move (we neglect the ends at infinity)

if you want to look at it in terms of gaussian pillboxes (just a fancy name for the cylinders you draw)....well because I've said the electric field is always radial, you wont have ANY field out of the ends.

unless we're talking about a length of chrage which isnt infinite in length that is! But in that case you could (as you correctly say) arrange a pillbox so that the fields dont cancel.

does that make any sense or have i misinterpreted your question?

If that's your question, then you simply remember we're working with electrostatics, and so none of the charges should be moving. Now let us suppose we have a non-radial electric field....that would mean the charges experience a sideways force along the wire (or whatever) and so would move. They would actually move until they are aligned such that there is only radial electric field...there can only be radial field because otherwise the charges would move (we neglect the ends at infinity)

if you want to look at it in terms of gaussian pillboxes (just a fancy name for the cylinders you draw)....well because I've said the electric field is always radial, you wont have ANY field out of the ends.

unless we're talking about a length of chrage which isnt infinite in length that is! But in that case you could (as you correctly say) arrange a pillbox so that the fields dont cancel.

does that make any sense or have i misinterpreted your question?

well you could be sneaky and throw the superposition thing at him....just say "For every point in space, there will be a field from one point charge on line, and a field symmetrically positioned somewhere else on the line to cancel out any non-radial field. This means there must be only radial field left. (Edit: This is exactly what feynman the man himself says in Vol 2....the charges by symmetry cancel axial field!)

But personally I still use the idea that if they werent radial, the charges would surely experience sideways force, and so would move....this would then lead to a radial field. It explains nicely way why placing a metal ball in an electric field causes the field lines to point into the ball radially, and then point out of the ball radially.....if they didnt point radially, the charges would move. They keep moving until all field points radially, and so the charges stop moving: equilibrium

It's important to be able to define the vector direction as well, otherwise you can get in a pickle with signs. For example, Potential is MINUS the integral of F.dl, this is because the vector dl points in the direction of decreasing F (towards infinity), and so if you move in direction of increasing F, you are moving against dl, the minus sign is there to compensate. I think of it like the integral of F.-dl from one point to another....where -dl is now the vector in the direction of increasing potential! All fixed

But personally I still use the idea that if they werent radial, the charges would surely experience sideways force, and so would move....this would then lead to a radial field. It explains nicely way why placing a metal ball in an electric field causes the field lines to point into the ball radially, and then point out of the ball radially.....if they didnt point radially, the charges would move. They keep moving until all field points radially, and so the charges stop moving: equilibrium

It's important to be able to define the vector direction as well, otherwise you can get in a pickle with signs. For example, Potential is MINUS the integral of F.dl, this is because the vector dl points in the direction of decreasing F (towards infinity), and so if you move in direction of increasing F, you are moving against dl, the minus sign is there to compensate. I think of it like the integral of F.-dl from one point to another....where -dl is now the vector in the direction of increasing potential! All fixed

thanks. I have another question actually (think this is going to become the official Oxbridge Physics Revision thread )

If we have a very long neutral wire carrying a steady current I at distances much less than the length of the wire, then we can find the tangential component Bφ of the magentic field quite easily (by drawing a loop and using Ampere's Law). How can i PROVE that the radial component Br is zero? Do I basically draw a surface and then use the No Free Poles Law (Div.B = 0)? Similarly, for Bz? Thanks. These are questions my tutor has set and he specifically wants us to prove they're zero, rather than just assuming.

If we have a very long neutral wire carrying a steady current I at distances much less than the length of the wire, then we can find the tangential component Bφ of the magentic field quite easily (by drawing a loop and using Ampere's Law). How can i PROVE that the radial component Br is zero? Do I basically draw a surface and then use the No Free Poles Law (Div.B = 0)? Similarly, for Bz? Thanks. These are questions my tutor has set and he specifically wants us to prove they're zero, rather than just assuming.

Yup I think you've got it there, using the idea of No Free Poles. Br and Bz must be 0 because if you drew a gaussian pillbox centered on the wire, with the axis pointing along the wire, then you know there can be no outflow through the pillbox surface. The pillbox has a curved surface and two flat surfaces....outflow can only occur from Br and Bz components....which hence must both be 0.

If you want to get technical (your tutor might like) then you would say: From Divergence theorem, Integral of DivB over the pillbox volume = Integral of Vector B over the surface of the PillBox. But Integral of DivB = 0...so Integral of Vector B over the surface of the pillbox must be 0.

So we have a surface integral....now lets define the surface in terms of surface vectors. We have 3 surfaces: 1 curved surface with dS = dS(dr,0,0) (radial only) and then 2 flat surfaces with dS = dS(0,0,dz) and (0,0,-dz) (axis only). Since these integrals MUST = 0, the radial component of vector B = 0, and so does the z component. The only one which doesnt have to be 0 is the angular component cicrulating round the wire.

now excuse me while i attend a lonely erg

If you want to get technical (your tutor might like) then you would say: From Divergence theorem, Integral of DivB over the pillbox volume = Integral of Vector B over the surface of the PillBox. But Integral of DivB = 0...so Integral of Vector B over the surface of the pillbox must be 0.

So we have a surface integral....now lets define the surface in terms of surface vectors. We have 3 surfaces: 1 curved surface with dS = dS(dr,0,0) (radial only) and then 2 flat surfaces with dS = dS(0,0,dz) and (0,0,-dz) (axis only). Since these integrals MUST = 0, the radial component of vector B = 0, and so does the z component. The only one which doesnt have to be 0 is the angular component cicrulating round the wire.

now excuse me while i attend a lonely erg

lol, right just finished bathing the dog so I've bene enjoying sunshine, now back to EM! Have a quick question...

When we have to parallel sheets with the same, but opposite charge, I know that the electric field outside of them is zero. Is this because if you drew a Gaussian Surface covering them both, you do not have any net charge inside?

When we have to parallel sheets with the same, but opposite charge, I know that the electric field outside of them is zero. Is this because if you drew a Gaussian Surface covering them both, you do not have any net charge inside?

Hoofbeat

lol, right just finished bathing the dog so I've bene enjoying sunshine, now back to EM! Have a quick question...

When we have to parallel sheets with the same, but opposite charge, I know that the electric field outside of them is zero. Is this because if you drew a Gaussian Surface covering them both, you do not have any net charge inside?

When we have to parallel sheets with the same, but opposite charge, I know that the electric field outside of them is zero. Is this because if you drew a Gaussian Surface covering them both, you do not have any net charge inside?

yep!

cheers Nick! Glad to see that someone else is around to answer my questions! Willa is probably going to get very frustrated with me

Here's another one: (you should all thank me that you're sort of revising too by having to explain it to me )

Q.Charges +q, +2q, -5q & +2q are placed at the four corners ABCD of a square of side a respectively, taken in cyclic order. Find the electric field strength at centre of square.

Right I know we use the field at each of the different charges and then superimpose. I've done this question before, but looking back I'm stuck with one bit. Say we're working out the field due to QA:

E = 2q/ka² (as the diagonal displacement from A -> O is a

If I want to resolve this into the x and y components so I can later work out the resultant easier, why do I get:

Ex = 2q/ka²√2 and Ey=2q/ka²√2

Where did the √2 come from?!

Here's another one: (you should all thank me that you're sort of revising too by having to explain it to me )

Q.Charges +q, +2q, -5q & +2q are placed at the four corners ABCD of a square of side a respectively, taken in cyclic order. Find the electric field strength at centre of square.

Right I know we use the field at each of the different charges and then superimpose. I've done this question before, but looking back I'm stuck with one bit. Say we're working out the field due to QA:

E = 2q/ka² (as the diagonal displacement from A -> O is a

If I want to resolve this into the x and y components so I can later work out the resultant easier, why do I get:

Ex = 2q/ka²√2 and Ey=2q/ka²√2

Where did the √2 come from?!

if the square is of side "a" then the distance to the centre of the square is: root(a^2 + a^2) / 2 = root(2)*a / 2 = a / Root(2)

so using that for a (with a-hat being the unit directional vector from the charge to the centre

E = 2q/ka^2 = 2q/k(a/root(2))^2 = 2q/ka^2 * 2 * a-hat

but a-hat is just (1/root(2),1/root(2)) so for the components

Ex = 2q/ka^2 * 2/root(2) = 2q/ka^2 * Root(2)

and same for Ey

Edit: I've just seen you were contented....oh well like you said it's good revision for me as well!

so using that for a (with a-hat being the unit directional vector from the charge to the centre

E = 2q/ka^2 = 2q/k(a/root(2))^2 = 2q/ka^2 * 2 * a-hat

but a-hat is just (1/root(2),1/root(2)) so for the components

Ex = 2q/ka^2 * 2/root(2) = 2q/ka^2 * Root(2)

and same for Ey

Edit: I've just seen you were contented....oh well like you said it's good revision for me as well!

Well if it's any consolation, by the sounds of things you're doing quite a bit more revision than a lot of people i know...namely the people i just spent the day with playing football in the park and drinking Pimms (4 of us are oxbridge students, and seem to have acquired a taste for that overly priced beverage!). Tomorrow I SHALL revise!

Willa

Well if it's any consolation, by the sounds of things you're doing quite a bit more revision than a lot of people i know...namely the people i just spent the day with playing football in the park and drinking Pimms (4 of us are oxbridge students, and seem to have acquired a taste for that overly priced beverage!). Tomorrow I SHALL revise!

Lol. I wish I wasn't though....especially when I think of all the lovely things I could be doing (and that even includes ergs!)...Shiny it doesn't help when you tell me you've been lazying around in ChCh Meadow all day Sounds like you had a great day Will, wish I could have joined you (ummmm...Pimms ). Fishpaste - I hate vector calculus too, but it does appear it has numerous applications in Physics <grumbles>. Anyways, after my cousing coming round yesterday I didn't finish the section on EM that I wanted to, so need to get that done today as well....back to the books <once I've checked a few more forums of course )

- Start studying hard in Uni too late for my career?
- Thoughts from a recent Oxford Physics Graduate; Ask me anything!
- Smartest group(s) among these...
- Is it possible to do a masters in maths after an undergraduate in natural sciences
- Any astrophysicist a level
- Dropping out of physics degree to do management at warwick
- Question about Oxford Maths
- Physics and Philosophy, Oxford
- UCAS Clearing 2023 FAQ and Help Megathread
- Got a Ucas or results related question? Ask a Clearing and Applications Advisor here
- St Andrews vs Oxbridge
- AS/A-Level Physics or English Lit? I have no idea what to pick.
- Which exam board for further maths is “easiest”/how do they differ?
- 24 Years old, returning to A-Levels. Need some advice. (Physics & Maths)
- What GCSE subjects to choose to become a physicist?
- Maths//Physics work experience
- How much Physics in chemical engineering?
- Can low tier unis reject you because they think you're applying for Oxbridge?
- Law at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) opinions?
- Chemistry or Chemical Physics?

- Fine Art at the Ruskin Oxford 2024
- Oxford PPE Interviews for 2024 entry
- Mat 2023
- Human Sciences Oxford applicants 2023-2024
- Hat 2023
- Oxford Economics and Management Interview 2024
- 2024 Oxford New College Interview Invites
- Oxford language applicants - 2024 entry
- Oxford maths interview
- TSA Section 1 2023 / Oxford E&M (2024 entry) thread
- Extra MAT 2023
- Oxford Interviews 2024 History of Art
- Oxford University Law Interview Shortlisting
- Oxford Chemistry interview questions
- John Locke Essay Competition 2023
- Oxford interviews 2023
- When will I hear back from Oxford about interviews?
- do colleges send all interview invites on the same day?
- Oxford Interview Notification
- Oxford history written work

- Music Conservatoire Applicants 2022
- Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entry
- University of Oxford 2024 Undergraduate Applicants Official Thread
- QUB Dentistry 2024 entry
- Cambridge interview invitation?
- Official: Brighton and Sussex (BSMS) A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Need advice on previous study.
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel war
- Housemate is probably an escort...
- Student maintenance loans for previous years.

- Psychology to Tech
- University of Southampton A100 (BM5) 2024 Entry
- Lloyds Banking Group 2024 Graduate Scheme
- Uni Flatmate in Leeds needed
- Official: St George's, University of London A100 2024 Entry
- Auditors are a waste of time
- Official University of Leeds Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Home Office - Asylum Decision Maker (EO)
- Accenture 2023-2024 grad scheme
- The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread

- Migrant worker maintenance loan
- Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024
- BP graduate scheme 2024
- Total cost for Dual LLB/JD with the Chinese Uni of Hong Kong (M127)
- How do UCL pick students
- Bank of England Degree Apprenticeship
- 50% worth of assessment
- Official Year 12 Chat 2023-24
- is this a red flag
- UNI or Police Constable Degree apprenticeship

- SHOULD I CUT MY FRIEND OFF? please read im desperate
- A lot of people have been telling me I don’t display a normal behaviour.
- Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024
- Ulip 2024
- Frontline Social Work 2024
- Vodafone Cyber Security Degree Apprenticeship 2024
- LNAT Master practice questions hard?
- Therapeutic Times with Persephone and Pals!
- Christmas Countdown
- Year 12 work experience placements in finance or law