- #1
mastrofoffi
- 51
- 12
- TL;DR Summary
- I have a doubt about integration boundaries in Poisson's equation. Specifically, my 'intuition'(which is clearly wrong) would lead me to integrate in opposite order to the exact one.
I have a gaussian charge distribution, in gaussian units
$$
\rho(\mathbf r) = q\frac{\alpha^3}{\pi^{3/2}}\exp( -\alpha^2 r^2 )
$$
and I want to solve Poisson's equation to find the electrostatic potential
$$
\nabla^2 \psi(\mathbf r) = -4\pi\rho(\mathbf r).
$$
Since the charge distribution has spherical symmetry I move to polar coordinates where Poisson's equation reads
$$
\frac{ \text{d}^2 }{ \text{d} r^2} r\psi(r) = -4\pi r \rho(r).
$$
Now what I would do in order to solve the equation is to integrate in 2 steps, so the first integration would give me a radial expression for the electric field, and integrating the electric field i would obtain the potential. If i want the potential at some point ## r ##, I would expect the integration on the density ## \rho ## to be taken from the origin to ## r ##, and the subsequent integration from ## \infty ## to ## r ##, so in maths:
$$
\psi(r) = -4\pi\frac{1}{r}\int_{\infty}^{r}\text{d} s \int_{0}^{s} \text{d} t \rho(t)t
$$
This is clearly wrong, since I get a ## 1-e^{-...} ## term from the first integral, returning an ## \infty ## when integrated again. It turns out the correct integration is the other way around:
$$
\psi(r) = -4\pi\frac{1}{r}\int_{0}^{r}\text{d}s \int_{\infty}^{s} \text{d} t\rho(t) t
$$
I know this is correct since it agrees with what I expected(I am using this to develop the decomposition of electrostatic energy in Ewald summation), but I can't understand what's the reasoning behind the 'choice' of the integration boundaries. I am able solve the equation by other means (i.e. use gauss's theorem to write ## \psi(r) = \int_{\infty}^{r}\text{d}s E(s) = \int_{\infty}^{r}\text{d}s \frac{1}{s^2} \int_{\Omega(s)} \text{d}\mathbf t \rho(\mathbf t) ## where ## \Omega(s) ## is a sphere of radius ##s## in ##\mathbb R^3## so I'm not asking about how to get the solution, but only how to setup the integrals correctly and why, both from a mathematical and from a more 'practical' physical perspective.
Thank you.
$$
\rho(\mathbf r) = q\frac{\alpha^3}{\pi^{3/2}}\exp( -\alpha^2 r^2 )
$$
and I want to solve Poisson's equation to find the electrostatic potential
$$
\nabla^2 \psi(\mathbf r) = -4\pi\rho(\mathbf r).
$$
Since the charge distribution has spherical symmetry I move to polar coordinates where Poisson's equation reads
$$
\frac{ \text{d}^2 }{ \text{d} r^2} r\psi(r) = -4\pi r \rho(r).
$$
Now what I would do in order to solve the equation is to integrate in 2 steps, so the first integration would give me a radial expression for the electric field, and integrating the electric field i would obtain the potential. If i want the potential at some point ## r ##, I would expect the integration on the density ## \rho ## to be taken from the origin to ## r ##, and the subsequent integration from ## \infty ## to ## r ##, so in maths:
$$
\psi(r) = -4\pi\frac{1}{r}\int_{\infty}^{r}\text{d} s \int_{0}^{s} \text{d} t \rho(t)t
$$
This is clearly wrong, since I get a ## 1-e^{-...} ## term from the first integral, returning an ## \infty ## when integrated again. It turns out the correct integration is the other way around:
$$
\psi(r) = -4\pi\frac{1}{r}\int_{0}^{r}\text{d}s \int_{\infty}^{s} \text{d} t\rho(t) t
$$
I know this is correct since it agrees with what I expected(I am using this to develop the decomposition of electrostatic energy in Ewald summation), but I can't understand what's the reasoning behind the 'choice' of the integration boundaries. I am able solve the equation by other means (i.e. use gauss's theorem to write ## \psi(r) = \int_{\infty}^{r}\text{d}s E(s) = \int_{\infty}^{r}\text{d}s \frac{1}{s^2} \int_{\Omega(s)} \text{d}\mathbf t \rho(\mathbf t) ## where ## \Omega(s) ## is a sphere of radius ##s## in ##\mathbb R^3## so I'm not asking about how to get the solution, but only how to setup the integrals correctly and why, both from a mathematical and from a more 'practical' physical perspective.
Thank you.