Basic question about the generalized Poisson Equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving the two-dimensional Poisson equation with spatially varying dielectric constants using the Finite Difference method under Dirichlet boundary conditions. The main inquiry is whether the potential can exceed boundary values when the charge density is zero but permittivity varies, and if the potential can exceed boundary values when charge density is non-zero but permittivity is constant. It is noted that in regions with constant dielectric, potential extremes occur at boundaries, but variations in permittivity may allow for different behaviors. Additionally, the analogy to heat conduction suggests that internal potentials could exceed boundary values if influenced by local charge densities. The conversation emphasizes the complexities of potential behavior in relation to boundary conditions and material properties.
maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi,

Suppose we look at two dimensional Poisson's equation in a medium with spatially varying (but real) dielectric constant:

\nabla(\epsilon_r\nabla \varphi) = -\frac{\rho(x,y)}{\epsilon_0}

Consider the problem of solving this using the Finite Difference method on a rectangular grid, subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions at the 4 edges (which are assumed to be conducting sheets, surrounding some dielectric medium). This is supposed to model a semiconducting device I am trying to work on numerically for a thesis project.

Now if \rho(x,y) = 0 I know from basic electromagnetic theory (c.f. Griffiths, for instance) that in a sub-region where the dielectric constant doesn't vary at all, the potential can have no local maxima or minima, and that it can only take extreme values at the boundaries. This is because the equation is then Laplace's equation, and this is a property of all Harmonic functions. I get this.

(1) Now suppose \rho(x,y) = 0 still, but the permittivity varies spatially -- it is a constant for one region, and another constant for another region, etc. In this case, can I make any statements about the limits on the values of the potential?

(2) If \rho(x,y) is now nonzero but permittivity does not vary spatially, I just have the regular Poisson equation. If \rho(x,y) gets contributions only from the doping and voltage induced local charge density but no horrible delta function like isolated charges, is it still correct to say that the potential in the region cannot exceed the values at the boundaries?

So if I were to apply 1 V to the right edge and 0.5 V to the top edge, then as long as there are no isolated point charges in the dielectric medium, can I generally say that the potential in the interior will never exceed 0.5 V or 1 V?

I tried to answer this question in one-dimension where the solution to a constant charge density is a parabolic potential. I can fit the potential to the end point Dirichlet boundary condition values, but in the intermediate region I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed to go beyond these values.

Any insights?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
maverick280857 said:
Hi,

Suppose we look at two dimensional Poisson's equation in a medium with spatially varying (but real) dielectric constant:

\nabla(\epsilon_r\nabla \varphi) = -\frac{\rho(x,y)}{\epsilon_0}

Consider the problem of solving this using the Finite Difference method on a rectangular grid, subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions at the 4 edges (which are assumed to be conducting sheets, surrounding some dielectric medium). This is supposed to model a semiconducting device I am trying to work on numerically for a thesis project.

Now if \rho(x,y) = 0 I know from basic electromagnetic theory (c.f. Griffiths, for instance) that in a sub-region where the dielectric constant doesn't vary at all, the potential can have no local maxima or minima, and that it can only take extreme values at the boundaries. This is because the equation is then Laplace's equation, and this is a property of all Harmonic functions. I get this.

(1) Now suppose \rho(x,y) = 0 still, but the permittivity varies spatially -- it is a constant for one region, and another constant for another region, etc. In this case, can I make any statements about the limits on the values of the potential?

(2) If \rho(x,y) is now nonzero but permittivity does not vary spatially, I just have the regular Poisson equation. If \rho(x,y) gets contributions only from the doping and voltage induced local charge density but no horrible delta function like isolated charges, is it still correct to say that the potential in the region cannot exceed the values at the boundaries?

So if I were to apply 1 V to the right edge and 0.5 V to the top edge, then as long as there are no isolated point charges in the dielectric medium, can I generally say that the potential in the interior will never exceed 0.5 V or 1 V?

I tried to answer this question in one-dimension where the solution to a constant charge density is a parabolic potential. I can fit the potential to the end point Dirichlet boundary condition values, but in the intermediate region I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed to go beyond these values.

Any insights?

This is analogous to a steady state heat conduction problem with a variable thermal conductivity and a distributed heat source (or sink). The temperature within the region can certainly be higher than at any of the boundaries if heat is being generated. The boundaries would just then be providing cooling to remove the heat.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top