Is Charge Density Only Defined for Stationary Charges?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and implications of charge density in the context of stationary versus moving charges, particularly in relation to electrostatics and electric fields in dielectric materials. Participants explore the applicability of equations governing electric fields and charge densities in different scenarios, including static and dynamic cases.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether charge density is defined only for stationary charges, noting their experience with dielectric materials and the presence of current.
  • Another participant asserts that the volumetric density of electric charge is defined at any point in space and time, regardless of whether the charge is moving.
  • Some participants clarify that in electrostatics, the charge density referred to in equations is typically associated with static charges.
  • It is mentioned that the equations governing electric fields apply to both static and moving charges, but additional considerations arise when dealing with moving charges due to the presence of a non-zero curl.
  • One participant highlights that an electric current can exist with zero charge density, using an analogy to illustrate how charges can move while maintaining overall charge neutrality in a material.
  • There is a discussion about the differences between Poisson's equation and the d'Alembert equation, indicating that the latter is more general and applicable in relativistic contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of charge density definitions and equations in static versus dynamic scenarios. Some agree that electrostatics deals with static charges, while others argue that the equations can apply to moving charges as well. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions and equations in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about charge density and its relationship to current, as well as the scope of the equations discussed. The distinction between static and dynamic charge scenarios is not fully resolved.

CrusaderSean
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
silly question i guess, but is charge density defined only for stationary charges?

i'm asking this because I did a couple homework problems on finding electric field in linear dielectric material. Dielectric is between two surfaces held at constant potential difference (ie. parallel plate, concentric sphere or cylinder.. well neglect fringe effects). From what I understand, there is no charge (free or induced) density in the dielectric material because they only occur on boundary between conductor and dielectric. So I solved the problems using Laplace's equation (instead of Poisson). I found there is constant current going through the dielectric material. Since current is flux of charges, there must be charges moving through dielectric. Those charges aren't in the charge density definition because they're acting as current or some other reason? Perhaps I'm confusing some issues here...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[itex]\rho_{el}\left(\vec{r},t\right)[/itex] describes the volumic density of electric charge at the point [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] at the moment "t",no matter if the charge is moving or not...

Daniel.
 
my class is only on electrostatics.. so the [tex]\rho[/tex] in the equations below are static charges only?
[tex]\nabla{^2} \cdot V = \frac{-\rho}{\epsilon}[/tex]
[tex]\nabla \cdot E = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}[/tex]
 
Yeah.Electrostatics means static fields created,obviously by time independent electric charge densities.

Daniel.
 
CrusaderSean said:
my class is only on electrostatics.. so the [tex]\rho[/tex] in the equations below are static charges only?
[tex]\nabla{^2} \cdot V = \frac{-\rho}{\epsilon}[/tex]
[tex]\nabla \cdot E = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}[/tex]

Those equations apply to moving charges as well. Both of them are equivalent to one of Maxwell's Equations. In the presence of moving charge, however, that won't be enough to determine the electric field at a given point because it will have a non-zero curl.
 
Nope,for moving charges (in vacuum) we have

[tex]\square V\left(\vec{r},t\right)=-\frac{\rho\left(\vec{r},t\right)}{\epsilon_{0}}[/tex]

Daniel.
 
SpaceTiger said:
Those equations apply to moving charges as well. Both of them are equivalent to one of Maxwell's Equations...

i thought those equations were general (for static and dynamic) as well... guess i was wrong.
 
Gauss's law is the same (in mathematical form,not as functional dependence of the quantities involved) both for static & dynamic description.

The potential's equation is diff,however...Poisson vs.d'Alembert...

Daniel.
 
CrusaderSean said:
i thought those equations were general (for static and dynamic) as well... guess i was wrong.

You only need worry yourself about such things if your charges are moving relativistically, but dexter's equation is more general.
 
  • #10
That potential equation i posted is valid in the Coulomb gauge.Typically relativistic...

Daniel.
 
  • #11
An electric current can occcur with a zero charge density.
The current usually consists of negative electrons moving through the material,
while the positive charges remain fixed.
The density of negative charges equals that of the positive charges in the material.
Think of a hall with 100 men and 100 women in it. If the men start walking, but the women remain standing. The density of people will remain the same, but men will pile u at one end of the hall. There could be a charge buildup if the men walk at different rates. That would be described by the continutity eqation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K