Coulomb's Law from vector identities

AI Thread Summary
Coulomb's Law and superposition can be derived from vector identities, specifically through the implications of \nabla \cdot \mathcal{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} and \nabla \times \mathcal{E} = \mathbf{0}. The assumption of radial symmetry justifies the curl condition, which helps address the nonuniqueness of solutions by allowing the electric field to be expressed as E = -grad phi. However, there remains a nonuniqueness issue due to the potential phi, which can include any solution of Laplace's equation. Specifying boundary conditions, such as the electric field tending to zero at infinity, is essential for ensuring a unique, radially symmetric solution. The discussion highlights the importance of boundary conditions in deriving and justifying Coulomb's Law.
ralqs
Messages
97
Reaction score
1
I can show that Coulomb's Law + superposition implies \nabla \cdot \mathcal {E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0} and \nabla \times \mathcal{E} = \mathbf{0}. I want to go the other way and derive Coulomb's law and superposition from the vector identities. I know that Gauss' Law implies Coulomb's law if we assume that the electric field is radial and symmetric. Can these assumptions be justified from \nabla \times \mathcal{E} = \mathbf{0}? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We can expect the field to be radially symmetric on purely physical grounds, in which case curl E=0 seems a bit redundant.

But from a mathematical point of view, without curl E=0 there's a massive problem of nonuniqueness to the solutions: we can add an extra arbitrary field as long as it has zero divergence, so there are loads of possible solutions (though only one spherically symmetric).

Including curl E=0 mostly solves this problem: it means you can write E=-grad phi, where phi is the electrostatic potential. But there is still a nonuniqueness issue, because you can add to phi any solution of Laplace's equation. For example, we could have an extra constant magnetic field in the x-direction.

There's one more ingredient needed: the boundary conditions. If we specify that we want the field to tend to zero as we go to infinity, we get uniqueness. Only then can we guarantee that the field will be radially symmetric.
 
henry_m said:
There's one more ingredient needed: the boundary conditions. If we specify that we want the field to tend to zero as we go to infinity, we get uniqueness. Only then can we guarantee that the field will be radially symmetric.
Are you sure? Doesn't Gauss' Law guarantee that the force tends to zero as we tend to infinity?

But anyways, I managed to prove what I wanted. Thanks!
 
ralqs said:
Are you sure? Doesn't Gauss' Law guarantee that the force tends to zero as we tend to infinity?

Unfortunately not: for example, a constant electric field will have zero flux through any closed surface, but it certainly doesn't disappear at infinity. And there are infinitely many more nontrivial examples: pick any solution to Laplace's equation and take its gradient.

These can all be ruled out usually on physical grounds (unless you're interested, for example, in a situation where there is an externally applied field), which mathematically correspond to boundary conditions.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top