Charge distribution with charge density

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a charge distribution with a non-zero charge density in the half-space defined by \( z > 0 \). The problem involves applying Dirichlet boundary conditions at the plane \( z = 0 \) and understanding the implications for the potential function \( \varphi \) and the Green's function \( G_D \). Participants are examining the relationship between the potential and the boundary conditions in the context of electrostatics.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the application of the Green's function to satisfy the Dirichlet boundary condition and questioning the omission of a term in the potential formula. There is a discussion about whether the potential \( \varphi \) is zero on the boundary surface and how that affects the integrals involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on the implications of the boundary conditions and the mathematical expressions involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the evaluation of the potential at the boundary, but there is no explicit consensus on the interpretation of the terms in the equations.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the Dirichlet boundary condition on the potential function and the Green's function, specifically in relation to the surface integral and its evaluation. There is an acknowledgment of potential misunderstandings regarding the setup of the problem.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
The following is a worked example in my notes I am having difficulty with:

A charge distribution with charge density [itex]\rho \neq 0[/itex] exist in the half space [itex]V:z>0[/itex]
We can view this as a system with an earthed plate at the z=0 plane. So at z=0 we have the Dirichlet boundary condition [itex]\varphi(x,y,0)=0[/itex]

We know that the Greens' function [itex]G_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'}) = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \frac{1}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r'}} + f_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'})[/itex] i.e. it satisfies the Poisson equation (so essentially we're letting [itex]\varphi = G_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'})[/itex]

Our Dirichlet boundary condition tells us that [itex]G_D(\vec{r},(x',y',0))=0[/itex]

[itex]\Rightarrow f_D(\vec{r},(x',y',0))=-\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{(x-x')^2+(y-y')^2+z^2}}[/itex]

this is generalised to give

[itex]\Rightarrow f_D(\vec{r},(x',y',0))=-\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{(x-x')^2+(y-y')^2+(z+z')^2}}[/itex]

and we note that [itex]\nabla^2 f_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'})=0[/itex] i.e. it satisfies Laplace's equation and so G still satisfies Poisson's equation.

However it then states

[itex]\varphi(\vec{r})=\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_V dV' \rho(\vec{r'}) \left[ \frac{1}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r'}|} - \frac{1}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r'_m}|} \right][/itex]
where [itex]\vec{r'}=(x',y',z'), \vec{r'_m}=(x',y',-z')[/itex] (*)

but the formula given earlier for calculating the potential from Dirichlet boundary conditions was:

[itex]\varphi(\vec{r})= \int_V dV' G_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'}) \rho(\vec{r'}) - \epsilon_0 \int_S dS' \frac{\partial{G_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'})}}{\partial{n}} \varphi(\vec{r'})[/itex]
and so it appears that we've neglected the second term in the formula when we've written down the potential above at (*). Is this because the formula given for phi has a phi in the second term and so we can't apply it or something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
latentcorpse said:
… We can view this as a system with an earthed plate at the z=0 plane. So at z=0 we have the Dirichlet boundary condition [itex]\varphi(x,y,0)=0[/itex]…
but the formula given earlier for calculating the potential from Dirichlet boundary conditions was:

[itex]\varphi(\vec{r})= \int_V dV' G_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'}) \rho(\vec{r'}) - \epsilon_0 \int_S dS' \frac{\partial{G_D(\vec{r},\vec{r'})}}{\partial{n}} \varphi(\vec{r'})[/itex]
and so it appears that we've neglected the second term in the formula when we've written down the potential above at (*). Is this because the formula given for phi has a phi in the second term and so we can't apply it or something?

Hi latentcorpse! :smile:

In ∫SdS'…φ, if S is the z=0 plane (and a hemisphere at infinity?), then isn't φ 0 over S?
 


sorry could u perhaps give a bit more explanation please - i can't really see what you mean?
 
latentcorpse said:
sorry could u perhaps give a bit more explanation please - i can't really see what you mean?

perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question :confused:

i meant, if S is the surface with the Dirichlet boundary condition mentioned in the question,
then φ = 0 all over S, so the second integral is ∫S0 dS' = 0 ?
 


lol. good point.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K