- #1
Mandelbroth
- 611
- 24
I'm familiar with the differential form of Gauss's Law, which reads that ##\nabla\cdot\vec{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}##, where E is the electric field, ρ is the charge density, and ##\epsilon_0## is the permittivity of free space. We can take the volume integral of both sides, and then use the divergence theorem to obtain ##\displaystyle \iint\limits_{\partial V}(\vec{E}\cdot\hat{n}) \, dA = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0}\iiint\limits_{V}\rho \, dV##.
A friend of mine says that this is wrong, and that the statement of Gauss's Law in integral form is ##\displaystyle \oint\limits_{S}(\vec{E}\cdot\hat{n}) \, dA = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0}\iiint\limits_{V}\rho \, dV##. Is this just a notational issue, where the apparent closed line integral is just a physics shorthand for an integral over a surface, or am I misunderstanding what Gauss's Law is saying?
A friend of mine says that this is wrong, and that the statement of Gauss's Law in integral form is ##\displaystyle \oint\limits_{S}(\vec{E}\cdot\hat{n}) \, dA = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0}\iiint\limits_{V}\rho \, dV##. Is this just a notational issue, where the apparent closed line integral is just a physics shorthand for an integral over a surface, or am I misunderstanding what Gauss's Law is saying?
Last edited: