I have a question regarding the electric field of an infinite sheet in the $x-y$-plane at $z=0$ with a constant sheet charge density $\sigma$. There are many ways to obtain the result $$\boldsymbol E=\frac{\sigma}{2\epsilon_0}\frac{z}{|z|}\boldsymbol{e_z}$$ but I can't seem to recreate this result using the divergence theorem and a cylindric volume. Maybe someone can point out an error in my thoughts: Let's assume first $\boldsymbol E=E(z)\boldsymbol{e_z}$. Then we put a cylindric volume $V$ into the sheet such that it gets cut in half and its symmetry axis is the $z$-axis. Furthermore I want this cylinder to have height $2z$ (so that the top is located at $z$ and the bottom is located at $-z$) and radius $R$. Now, by the divergence theorem we have $$\begin{equation}\int_V\text{div}\boldsymbol EdV=\int_{\partial V}\boldsymbol E\cdot\boldsymbol{dA}.\tag{1}\end{equation}$$ By the maxwell equation $\text{div}\boldsymbol E=\frac{\sigma}{\varepsilon_0}$ we easily see that the left-hand side of $(1)$ is equal to $$\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}\int_VdV=\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon}V=\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}\pi R^2\cdot 2z.$$ Now for the right-hand side we first need the surface elements:

  • $\boldsymbol{dA}=Rd\varphi dz\boldsymbol{e_\varphi}$ for the lateral surface,
  • $\boldsymbol{dA}=zrdrd\varphi\boldsymbol{e_z}$ for the top and
  • $\boldsymbol{dA}=-zrdrd\varphi(\boldsymbol{-e_z})$ for the bottom.

Maybe this is already where my error is since this now means that the lateral surface cancels ($\boldsymbol{e_\varphi}\perp\boldsymbol{e_z}$) and we have $$\int_{\partial V}\boldsymbol E\cdot\boldsymbol{dA}=2zE(z)\int_0^R\int_0^{2\pi}rd\varphi dr=2\pi R^2 E(z)z$$ So here I must have lost a factor of 2 and also I don't obtain the fact that the electric field changes the direction at $z=0$. Whereas my second problem can probably be fixed by just assuming $$\boldsymbol E(z)=\begin{cases}E(z)\boldsymbol{e_z},& z> 0\\ -E(z)\boldsymbol{e_z}, &z<0\end{cases},$$ I have no idea how to fix the first problem: Where did my $2$ go?


The issue is in your definition of density, turns out that the volume density of charge in your problem is

$$ \rho = \sigma\delta(z - 0)= \sigma \delta(z) \tag{1} $$

That way Maxwell's equation becomes

$$ \require{cancel} \int_{\partial V}{\rm d}^2{\bf S}\cdot {\bf E} = \int_V{\rm d}^3{\bf r}~\nabla \cdot {\bf E} = \int_V{\rm d}^3{\bf r} \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0} \int{\rm d}x{\rm dy}\cancelto{1}{\int{\rm d}z \delta(z)} = \frac{\sigma A}{\epsilon_0} \tag{2} $$

where $A$ is the area of your cylinder $A = \pi R^2$. Now, on the l.h.s you are right, split the boundary into three pieces, the normal vector on the sides is perpendicular to the field and its contribution will vanish. Leading to

$$ \int_{\partial V}{\rm d}^2{\bf S}\cdot {\bf E} = 2E A \tag{3} $$

Putting these two results together

$$ E = \frac{\sigma }{2\epsilon_0} $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! However, taking the rong density of charge cannot be my only mistake. Because my r-h-s in (1) depends on $z$. So what is the problem with my surface element? Maybe it is the $\pm z$ I tossed in there? But if I don't do that then the top and bottom integral cancel each other out as well. $\endgroup$ – RedLantern Dec 2 '18 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ @RedLantern The surface element is also wrong, it should be ${\rm d}A = r{\rm d}r d\phi$. If you multiply that by ${\rm d}z$ (as you have it), you will get a volume differential $\endgroup$ – caverac Dec 2 '18 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I thought about this. But the surface element on the top points to the positive $z$-axis where the surface element on the bottom points towards the negative $z$-axis. So if we bring the direction $\boldsymbol{e_z}$ into the element (which we have to), then one is exactly the multiple of $-1$ of the other. This means that adding up the integrals yields $0$. Do you understand where my problem is? $\endgroup$ – RedLantern Dec 2 '18 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ @RedLantern The field lines point up $+z$ in the upper face, and down in the lower one, so the inner product is alway positive. No need to introduce an extra factor ${\rm d}z$ into the differential $\endgroup$ – caverac Dec 2 '18 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ I never introduced a $dz$ in my differential. But I understand what you're saying. So we have to implement the direction of the electric field right away, it doesn't come naturally by computing those integrals. $\endgroup$ – RedLantern Dec 2 '18 at 9:23

Your mistake comes from a misunderstanding about the charge density. It is not uniformly distributed through the volume of the cylinder; rather, it is concentrated in an infinitesimally thin sheet; namely, the volumetric charge density (which is what Gauss's Law gives you) is $\rho=\sigma\delta(z)$. So your integral on the left-hand side of (1) should be

$$\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}\int dV = \frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}\int dA \int \delta(z) dz$$

Since, for any region of integration containing $0$, we have that $\int \delta(z) dz =1 $, therefore, this integral evaluates to

$$\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0}\pi R^2$$

which is the total charge enclosed by your Gaussian surface divided by $\epsilon_0$. Incidentally, this would have been completely obvious had you used the integral form of Gauss's Law instead of the differential form.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer too! Since you both basically described the same problem I replied above. $\endgroup$ – RedLantern Dec 2 '18 at 7:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.