- #1

- 34

- 0

But minus sine comes when we evaluate the dot product first.

How does the minus sign occur without evaluating the dot product?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Zubair Ahmad
- Start date

In summary, Griffiths explains in chapter 7 of his book "Electrodynamics" that the minus sign in the equation D1.a - D2.a = sigma occurs due to the dot product being evaluated first. This can be seen by considering the integral over a small Gaussian "pill box" where the contributions from the four surfaces perpendicular to the boundary surface cancel out, but there may be a surface charge along the boundary surface. This results in a non-zero total charge within the pill box, equal to sigma times the area a. The minus sign in the equation comes from the fact that the surface normal vector on one side of the boundary surface is opposite in direction to that of the other side. This can be seen in the figure inf

- #1

- 34

- 0

But minus sine comes when we evaluate the dot product first.

How does the minus sign occur without evaluating the dot product?

- #2

- 23,733

- 14,404

$$\vec{n} \cdot (\vec{D}_1-\vec{D}_2)=\sigma.$$

Here ##\vec{D}_1## (##\vec{D}_2##) denotes the value of ##\vec{D}## when approaching the point on the boundary surface under investigation from side 1 (side 2) of the boundary surface. The minus in the above equation comes from the fact that the surface normal vector of the pill box parallel to the boundary at side 2 is just ##-\vec{n}##, where ##\vec{n}## is the direction of the surface normal vector at side 1 (see again Fig. 7.48, where in my notation ##\vec{a}=a \vec{n}##).

- #3

- 34

- 0

Still confusing!

- #4

- 23,733

- 14,404

Why? Where is your problem?

- #5

- 34

- 0

I'm saying that negative sign would come due to dot product.so it can't be written before it.

- #6

- 23,733

- 14,404

$$a \vec{n} \cdot \vec{D}_1 + a (-\vec{n}) \cdot \vec{D}_2 = a \vec{n} \cdot (\vec{D}_1-\vec{D}_2).$$

Look again at the figure in the book. It's really quite ovious.

Share:

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 646

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 691

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 722

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 834

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 544

- Replies
- 22

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 822

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 598

- Replies
- 49

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 708