 Electrostatic boundary conditions at a conductor

The electrostatic boundary conditions at a conductor relate the one-sided total electric fields at a smooth metal–vacuum interface. Choose a unit normal $\mathbf{n}$ from metal into the adjacent vacuum, let ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{metal}}$ and ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{vac}}$ be the two limiting electric fields, and let $\sigma$ be the signed surface charge density. A thin Gaussian pillbox with cap area $A$ has outward cap normals $+\mathbf{n}$ on the vacuum side and $-\mathbf{n}$ on the metal side. As its height tends to zero, its side electric flux tends to zero for bounded local electric fields, leavingThe minus sign comes from the second outward cap normal, not from the sign of the electric charge. A shrinking rectangular loop across the interface and the zero closed line integral in electrostatics give continuity of the tangential component:For a conductor in electrostatic equilibrium, ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{metal}}=0$, henceThus positive surface charge density gives an electric field away from metal and negative surface charge density gives an electric field toward metal. The derivative uses the same chosen unit normal, from the vacuum side. The ideal surface layer has no unique electric field value on the layer itself; these are limiting values. Ordinary surface electric charge preserves continuity of electric potential; an ideal electric dipole sheet would require a different model. ^[ref].

Here “exterior” means just outside the metal, including the vacuum within a cavity in a conductor. On a spherical inner wall of radius $a$, its unit normal from metal into the cavity in a conductor is $-\hat{\mathbf{r}}$. A central positive point charge $q$ gives ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{vac}}=q\hat{\mathbf{r}}/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{a}^2)$ there, soThe outward normal of the cavity in a conductor as a volume is instead $+\hat{\mathbf{r}}$; confusing these two unit normals reverses the inferred sign. For a stipulated spherical enclosure with inner radius $a$, outer radius $b$, no external sources and total isolated metal electric charge $Q_c$, spherical symmetry and Gauss's law give the analytical modelIts outer surface charge density is $(Q_c+q)/(4\pi b^2)$. Grounding to $V_c=0$ with zero electric potential at infinity instead gives $Q_c=-q$ and zero exterior electric field, while preserving the same nonzero electric field inside the charged cavity in a conductor.

As a numerical sign check, stipulate $q=1\mathrm{nC}$, $a=0.10\mathrm{m}$, $b=0.20\mathrm{m}$ and $1/(4\pi {ϵ}_0)\simeq 8.99\times 10^9\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{C}}^2$. The inner electric field is approximately $899N/C$ along $+\hat{\mathbf{r}}$, but ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{vac}}\cdot \mathbf{n}=-899N/C$ and ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{inner}}\simeq -7.96nC/{\mathrm{m}}^2$. An isolated neutral enclosure has $+1\mathrm{nC}$ on the outer wall, approximately $+1.99nC/{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $225N/C$ just outside. Multiplying each surface charge density by its spherical surface area recovers the signed wall electric charges.

The local result uses the total electric field, including all induced and imposed sources. The factor $\sigma /{ϵ}_0$ follows from the zero metal-side electric field; a symmetric isolated sheet in vacuum instead has magnitude $|\sigma |/(2{ϵ}_0)$ on each side. ^[ref]. At sharp corners, limiting electric fields can be singular and the smooth local pillbox argument needs care. In material outside the metal, use the normal free-charge jump of the electric displacement field and the material's permittivity, as in electrostatic interface boundary conditions. ^[ref].