Consistency in finding electric field

In summary, the two forms of Gauss's law are equivalent when the shell is in a linear dielectric. The Electric field is found from the free charge distribution and the induced charge by dividing it by the dielectric constant. The E field is found from the D field by dividing it by the dielectric constant. The P field is found from the E field.
  • #1
ShayanJ
Insights Author
Gold Member
2,810
604
When considering electric field in a dielectric media,there are two forms of Gauss's law:[itex]
\oint \vec{D}\cdot\vec{d \sigma}=q_f
[/itex]and [itex] \epsilon_0 \oint \vec{E}\cdot\vec{d\sigma}=q_f+q_b [/itex]

So we can do the following in a linear dielectric:
1-Finding D field from the free charge distribution using the first form of Gauss's law.
2-Finding E field from the D field by dividing it by [itex] \epsilon [/itex].
3-Finding P field from the E field.
4-Finding surface and volume bound charge distributions from the P field.
5-Finding E field from the free and bound charge distributions using the second form of Gauss's law.
For consistency,the result of steps 2 and 5 should be equal.How is that guaranteed?

I'm asking this because of the following example:
There is a linear dielectric spherical shell with inner and outer radii a and b.It has a free charge distribution of [itex] \rho_f=\frac{k}{2r} [/itex] and it contains a charge q at its center.Using the first form of Gauss's law,one can find D and so E to be [itex] \vec{E}=\frac{\pi k (r^2-a^2)+q}{4 \pi \epsilon r^2} \hat{r}[/itex]. Using the relations [itex] \vec{P}=\epsilon_0 \chi \vec{E} [/itex] and [itex] \rho_b=-\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{P} [/itex] it is easy to obtain [itex]\rho_b=-\frac{\epsilon_0 \chi k}{2r} [/itex].
Now by using [itex] \rho_f [/itex] and [itex] \rho_b [/itex] to find E field from the second form of Gauss's law,one can find [itex] \vec{E}=\frac{\pi k (1-\epsilon_0 \chi)(r^2-a^2)+q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2} \hat{r} [/itex].
But looks like the two E fields are not equal!
What's wrong?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For consistency,the result of steps 2 and 5 should be equal. How is that guaranteed?
By the relationship between D and E ... btw: I'd normally use the differential form.
I'd check you accounted for everything in setting up your integrals ... the E field, for instance, is not going to be continuous.
 
  • #3
Simon Bridge said:
By the relationship between D and E ... btw: I'd normally use the differential form.
I'd check you accounted for everything in setting up your integrals ... the E field, for instance, is not going to be continuous.

Yeah...the formulation should be somehow that retains consistency,and of course it is.I'm just looking for a mistake.
And I forgot to tell(but maybe you figured out yourself)that the fields are calculated for the region inside the shell,i.e. a<r<b.
The discontinuity of the E field happens at the surfaces of the shell and should be accounted for when we want the E field for the whole space.But here I'm just calculating E field inside the shell by two different methods and they are not equal which means trouble!
 
  • #4
Since there is a free charge ##q## at the centre of the sphere and since

$$
\rho_b = -\chi \rho_f,
$$

there will be also induced bound charge ##-\chi q## at the centre. Did you include this charge into your calculation?
 
  • #5
Jano L. said:
Since there is a free charge ##q## at the centre of the sphere and since

$$
\rho_b = -\chi \rho_f,
$$

there will be also induced bound charge ##-\chi q## at the centre. Did you include this charge into your calculation?

As is stated in the first post,its not an sphere but an spherical shell and the charge is placed at the hollow part
 
  • #6
My mistake. Still, the charge at the centre will induce surface charge on the inner surface of the shell. This will contribute to the electric field. Did you include it in your calculation?
 
  • #7
Ooohhhhh...yeah...sorry...it was a foolish mistake.
 
  • #8
Well done - I used to really hate dielectric problems because I'd always miss something out.
An inconsistency like the above was a sure sign that I'd forgotten something yet again ... but it is how you check yourself.
 
  • #9
Simon Bridge said:
Well done - I used to really hate dielectric problems because I'd always miss something out.
An inconsistency like the above was a sure sign that I'd forgotten something yet again ... but it is how you check yourself.

Looks like it takes so much time to master it,I don't like it either!
Anyway,now that its solved,I can discuss sth else,the formula Jano mentioned [itex]\rho_b=-\chi \rho_f [/itex].
I think the right form is [itex] \rho_b=-\frac{\epsilon_0}{\epsilon}\chi \rho_f [/itex],because:
[itex]
\vec{P}=\epsilon_0\chi\vec{E} \Rightarrow \vec{P}=\epsilon_0\chi\frac{\vec{D}}{\epsilon}\Rightarrow \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{P}=\frac{\epsilon_0}{\epsilon}\chi\vec{\nabla} \cdot\vec{D} \Rightarrow \rho_b=-\frac{\epsilon_0}{\epsilon}\chi \rho_f
[/itex]
 
  • #10
Arrgh: I always miss something... OK:

Working through the concepts:

If the shell were a conductor, then the induced surface charge on the inside surface, due to the central point-charge of q, would be ##\sigma_a=-q/4\pi a^2## and on the outer surface: ##\sigma_b=q/4\pi b^2## ... so the resulting "polarization" field is equal and opposite to the electric field that would otherwise be present ... and they cancel out. In a dielectric, there is some electric field left over, so the "polarization" is less, so the induced charge is less by ratio ##\chi_E##. i.e. $$|\sigma_x|=\frac{\chi_E |q|}{4\pi x^2}:x\in\{ a,b \}$$ i.e. the total induced charge on the inner surface is ##q_a=-\chi q##

I remember this sort of thinking tying me up in knots though...

Note:
In your case: $$\rho_f=q\delta(r)+\frac{k}{2r}\big ( h(r-a)-h(r-b) \big )$$ ... where ##\delta(r)## is the Dirac delta function, and ##h(r)## is the Heaviside step function.

... from symmetry, ##\vec{D}= D(r)\hat{r}##, so:
$$2rD+r^2\frac{d}{dr}D = q\delta(r)+\frac{k}{2r}\big ( h(r-a)-h(r-b) \big )$$ ... solve for D and thus you get E and P. (Assuming I read the problem statement correctly.)
 
  • #11
Simon Bridge said:
Arrgh: I always miss something... OK:

Working through the concepts:

If the shell were a conductor, then the induced surface charge on the inside surface, due to the central point-charge of q, would be ##\sigma_a=-q/4\pi a^2## and on the outer surface: ##\sigma_b=q/4\pi b^2## ... so the resulting "polarization" field is equal and opposite to the electric field that would otherwise be present ... and they cancel out. In a dielectric, there is some electric field left over, so the "polarization" is less, so the induced charge is less by ratio ##\chi_E##. i.e. $$|\sigma_x|=\frac{\chi_E |q|}{4\pi x^2}:x\in\{ a,b \}$$ i.e. the total induced charge on the inner surface is ##q_a=-\chi q##

I remember this sort of thinking tying me up in knots though...

Note:
In your case: $$\rho_f=q\delta(r)+\frac{k}{2r}\big ( h(r-a)-h(r-b) \big )$$ ... where ##\delta(r)## is the Dirac delta function, and ##h(r)## is the Heaviside step function.

... from symmetry, ##\vec{D}= D(r)\hat{r}##, so:
$$2rD+r^2\frac{d}{dr}D = q\delta(r)+\frac{k}{2r}\big ( h(r-a)-h(r-b) \big )$$ ... solve for D and thus you get E and P. (Assuming I read the problem statement correctly.)
You should have wrote [itex] h(b-r) [/itex] instead of [itex] -h(r-b) [/itex].Anyway,I think the solution using integral form of Gauss's law is easier.Actually,I don't know what to do exactly with your last equation.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
You should have wrote h(b−r) instead of −h(r−b)
Don't think so... isn't it:

h(r)=1 for r>0, h(-r)=1 for r<0

h(b-r) is 1 for r<b

-h(r-b) is -1 for r>b

h(r-a)-h(r-b) produces a top-hat function between r=a and r=b provided b>a.

h(r-a)-h(b-r)= -1:r<a, 0:a<r<b, 1:r>b


In the end you still have to integrate - the integral form can be finessed so you do less work.
To solve the DE, you start by dividing the space into 3 parts: r<a, a<r<b, and r>b. What it does is put the fancy reasoning from above into applying the boundary conditions.

But if you are not comfortable solving DEs then better go with what you know.
 
  • #13
Simon Bridge said:
Don't think so... isn't it:

h(r)=1 for r>0, h(-r)=1 for r<0

h(b-r) is 1 for r<b

-h(r-b) is -1 for r>b

h(r-a)-h(r-b) produces a top-hat function between r=a and r=b provided b>a.

h(r-a)-h(b-r)= -1:r<a, 0:a<r<b, 1:r>b


In the end you still have to integrate - the integral form can be finessed so you do less work.
To solve the DE, you start by dividing the space into 3 parts: r<a, a<r<b, and r>b. What it does is put the fancy reasoning from above into applying the boundary conditions.

But if you are not comfortable solving DEs then better go with what you know.

I don't know what step function you're using but the one I know is defined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviside_step_function .
 
  • #14
That's the one I'm using - what have I written that is inconsistent with the wikipedia article?
For another take, see:
http://calculus7.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/stepfnnotesw2.pdf
... the third example shows a rectangular function made from two step functions.
(note: that class uses a slightly different formalism.)
 

1. What is electric field consistency?

Electric field consistency refers to the concept that the electric field at a given point in space remains constant over time, regardless of any changes in the source of the electric field.

2. Why is it important to consider electric field consistency?

Electric field consistency is important because it allows us to accurately predict and measure the behavior of electric fields in various situations, such as calculating the force on a charged particle or designing electrical circuits.

3. How can we ensure electric field consistency in our experiments?

To ensure electric field consistency, we must carefully control and measure all variables that could affect the electric field, such as the position and charge of the source and any conducting materials in the surrounding environment.

4. What factors can lead to inconsistencies in electric fields?

Inconsistencies in electric fields can be caused by changes in the source of the electric field, such as the movement of charged particles, or by external factors such as the presence of other electric or magnetic fields.

5. How does electric field consistency relate to the principle of superposition?

Electric field consistency is closely related to the principle of superposition, which states that the total electric field at a point is the sum of the individual electric fields from all nearby sources. By considering the electric field from each source separately, we can ensure consistency in the overall electric field at a given point.

Similar threads

  • Electromagnetism
Replies
6
Views
780
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
663
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
676
Replies
4
Views
330
Replies
3
Views
681
Replies
6
Views
647
Replies
0
Views
607
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
675
Back
Top