Coursework question: Poisson's Equation for Electrostatics

gulfcoastfella
Gold Member
Messages
99
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



(This isn't a homework problem; I'm just working through Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics" textbook, and can't find a very clear explanation.)

When the relationship between electric field and charge distribution are given by:

\nabla \cdot E = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_{o}}

does this require that the charge distribution fill a particular volume, like that bound by a Gaussian surface, where E is computed on the Gaussian surface? If not, how is the volume of the charge distribution accounted for in the equation? Basically, does the above equation demand that E be calculated on a Gaussian surface bounding a volume filled with the charge density \rho?

The same question applies for Poisson's Equation...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
gulfcoastfella said:

Homework Statement



(This isn't a homework problem; I'm just working through Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics" textbook, and can't find a very clear explanation.)

When the relationship between electric field and charge distribution are given by:

\nabla \cdot E = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_{o}}

does this require that the charge distribution fill a particular volume, like that bound by a Gaussian surface, where E is computed on the Gaussian surface? If not, how is the volume of the charge distribution accounted for in the equation? Basically, does the above equation demand that E be calculated on a Gaussian surface bounding a volume filled with the charge density \rho?

The same question applies for Poisson's Equation...

This is an equation which holds at every point in space. What it says is that the divergence of the E field at a point is equal to the volume charge density evaluated at that same point divided by epsilon zero. There is no gaussian surface or volume involved here.


If you choose to integrate both sides of the equation over a certain volume, then the volume integral of the left side of the equation (of the divergence) may be converted to a surface integral over the electric flux and the volume integral of the right side becomes the total charge enclosed in the volume divided by epsilon_0. This gives the integral form of Gauss' law. But the form you give above is the differential form and involves no volume, no surface.

Hope this helps
 
nrqed said:
This is an equation which holds at every point in space. What it says is that the divergence of the E field at a point is equal to the volume charge density evaluated at that same point divided by epsilon zero. There is no gaussian surface or volume involved here.


If you choose to integrate both sides of the equation over a certain volume, then the volume integral of the left side of the equation (of the divergence) may be converted to a surface integral over the electric flux and the volume integral of the right side becomes the total charge enclosed in the volume divided by epsilon_0. This gives the integral form of Gauss' law. But the form you give above is the differential form and involves no volume, no surface.

Hope this helps

That explains it perfectly. Sometimes I think textbook authors are so well versed in their craft that something appears obvious to them, while to me it requires a little bit more explaining. Your answer was spot on; thanks a bunch!
 
gulfcoastfella said:
That explains it perfectly. Sometimes I think textbook authors are so well versed in their craft that something appears obvious to them, while to me it requires a little bit more explaining. Your answer was spot on; thanks a bunch!
:cool:
You are very welcome! Believe me, this feeling (that some details that would make things much more clear are left out) remains present as you progress in your studies and read more and more advanced books. It never goes away. after a few years, you still get stuck on details but now it's in books on quantum field theory or advanced condensed matter physics. But if you then look back at lower level books you used to struggle with, you often think that was clearly explained, why did I have so much trouble back then! . This is when you realize that you have learned a lot and absorbed a lot of ideas and techniques. And years later, the quantum field theory/condensed matter textbooks will seem clear but you will be struggling with understanding research papers! So it's a constant struggle to figure out what other people mean! But it's fun!

best luck
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top