Electrostatic potential on the surface of a conductor

AI Thread Summary
At the surface of a conductor, the electric potential is constant due to the electric field being perpendicular to the surface, which means no work is done when moving a charge along it. This leads to the conclusion that the gradient of the potential, or E-field, should be zero; however, charges on the surface create an electric field normal to the surface. The discussion highlights that while the potential remains constant in the xy-plane, it does not necessarily mean that the potential gradient in the z-direction is also zero. The confusion arises from reconciling the presence of surface charges with the constant potential condition. Understanding this relationship is crucial for grasping electrostatic principles in conductors.
rbnphlp
Messages
53
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



At the surface of a conductor the potential is constant .. I can't get my head around this ..

Homework Equations


E=-grad V

The Attempt at a Solution



The only reason I can think about this is Electric field is perpendicular at the surface , hence no work is done when moving a point charge around the surface , hence potential is constant ..

But if V is constant , the surely E=-grad (V)-> E=0 , which is not the case since there are charges on the surface of the conductor, so surely must provide a E field normal to the surface ..

Thanks for any help
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Noone ? Does no one understand what I am saying or does no one know the anwer?
 
Say the surface lies in the xy-plane, for example. You'd have V(x,y,0)=V0 so that ∂V/∂x=∂V/∂y=0, but that doesn't imply that ∂V/∂z=0.
 
vela said:
Say the surface lies in the xy-plane, for example. You'd have V(x,y,0)=V0 so that ∂V/∂x=∂V/∂y=0, but that doesn't imply that ∂V/∂z=0.

Cheers :D
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top