- #1
stunner5000pt
- 1,465
- 4
check whether this result of this problem is consistent with this statement
[tex] \vec{E_{above}} - \vec{E_{below}} = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n} [/tex]
an infinite plan carries a uniform surface charge sigma. Find its electric field
Solution:
Draw a Gaussian Pillbox extending above and below the plane. Then
since [tex] \oint \vec{E} \bullet d\vec{a} = \frac{Q_{enc}}{\epsilon_{0}} [/tex]
and since[tex]Q_{enc} = \sigma A [/tex]
By Symmetry E points up and down
so
[tex] \int \vec{E} \bullet d\vec{a} = 2A |\vec{E}| [/tex]
so [tex] \vec{E} = \frac{\sigma}{2\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n} [/tex]
Now to tackle the question
Well for an infinite sheet for each side the Electric field points normal to the sheet, right?
SO the electric field for the top is [itex] \vec{E} = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n} [/itex]
and te bottom is the negative of that
So when you add those two together you get [tex] \vec{E} = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n}[/tex]
and this is consistent with statement. Easy enough. i just want to know whether this kind of 'proof' for the statement is satisfactory.
[tex] \vec{E_{above}} - \vec{E_{below}} = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n} [/tex]
an infinite plan carries a uniform surface charge sigma. Find its electric field
Solution:
Draw a Gaussian Pillbox extending above and below the plane. Then
since [tex] \oint \vec{E} \bullet d\vec{a} = \frac{Q_{enc}}{\epsilon_{0}} [/tex]
and since[tex]Q_{enc} = \sigma A [/tex]
By Symmetry E points up and down
so
[tex] \int \vec{E} \bullet d\vec{a} = 2A |\vec{E}| [/tex]
so [tex] \vec{E} = \frac{\sigma}{2\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n} [/tex]
Now to tackle the question
Well for an infinite sheet for each side the Electric field points normal to the sheet, right?
SO the electric field for the top is [itex] \vec{E} = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n} [/itex]
and te bottom is the negative of that
So when you add those two together you get [tex] \vec{E} = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_{0}} \hat{n}[/tex]
and this is consistent with statement. Easy enough. i just want to know whether this kind of 'proof' for the statement is satisfactory.