Timeline for Is the electric field inside a conductor zero a result of Gauss's Law?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2017 at 19:27 | comment | added | Shashaank | @dmckee Ok thank you I will correct that part as soon as I get pc | |
| May 11, 2017 at 18:47 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | To get to "field is zero in the intieror" you don't need to mention Gauss's Law at all. But what you suggest is the next step in showing that the charge goes to the surface. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 18:26 | comment | added | Shashaank | @dmckee Do you mean that I should have said that since E inside is 0 therefore net charge inside the metal is 0 by gauss law ? | |
| May 11, 2017 at 18:19 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | What is wrong is you were done before you mentioned Gauss's law-the equilibrium argument is all you needed-so your conclusion that Gauss's law tells you the field is zero is wrong. The equilibrium argument is what tells your that. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 18:13 | comment | added | Shashaank | @dmckee I didn't understand , what is wrong with the explanation ? | |
| May 11, 2017 at 18:08 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | You give the (correct) equilibrium argument for zero internal field and then claim that Guass's law is responsible for the conclusion you had already reached. | |
| May 11, 2017 at 16:53 | vote | accept | Bruno KM | ||
| May 11, 2017 at 16:51 | history | answered | Shashaank | CC BY-SA 3.0 |