Curl of Polarization in a bar electret

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Telis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curl Polarization
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of the curl of polarization in a bar electret, particularly in relation to the concepts presented in Griffith's "Introduction to Electrodynamics." Participants explore the implications of polarization in different geometries and the conditions under which the curl of polarization may or may not equal zero.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Griffith's states the curl of polarization does not equal zero everywhere in a bar electret and seeks clarification on this point.
  • Another participant draws an analogy to magnetostatics, suggesting that the curl of magnetization leads to surface currents, and similarly, the curl of polarization can diverge at the surface/air interface due to discontinuities.
  • A third participant confirms that the curl of polarization is non-zero at the surface/air interface but questions Griffith's assertion that symmetry in certain geometries leads to a zero curl of polarization.
  • Another participant explains that Griffith's is likely referring to the polarization within the material, excluding edge effects, and provides examples of uniform polarization in specific geometries like spheres and cylinders under uniform electric fields.
  • This participant also mentions that for odd geometries, the polarization is generally not uniform, leading to a non-zero curl of polarization.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the curl of polarization can be non-zero at interfaces and that certain geometries exhibit uniform polarization. However, there is no consensus on the implications of symmetry in relation to bar electrets and how it compares to other geometries.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific geometrical configurations and their effects on polarization, noting that edge effects and the nature of the electric field can influence the behavior of the curl of polarization. The discussion highlights the complexity of the topic without resolving the nuances involved.

Telis
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
In Griffith's "Introduction to Electrodynamics" says that in a bar electret the curl of the polarization does not equal zero everywhere. Why is that ? Thanks in advance
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Subhali
Science news on Phys.org
What comes to mind very quickly is the corresponding magnetostatics problem with a cylinder of uniform magnetization ## \vec{M} ##. In that case, ## \nabla \times \vec{M} =\vec{J}_m ## results in surface currents per unit length of ## \vec{K}_m=\vec{M} \times \hat{n} ## on the surface of the cylinder. ## \\ ## In the simplest case of uniform ## \vec{ P} ##, if you take ## \nabla \times \vec{P} ##, you will get places where ## \nabla \times \vec{P } ## diverges at parts of the surface/air interface. In general, if ## \vec{P} ## is uniform, the derivative ## \nabla \times \vec{P} ## vanishes, but this derivative can diverge when ## \vec{P} ## undergoes a discontinuity such as at the surface/air interface.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Telis
Thank you, it is pretty clear for me now that at the surface/air interface will have ##\nabla \times \vec{P} \neq 0 ##. Then Griffiths continues and says that "if the problem exhibits spherical, cylindrical, or plane symmetry then evidently in such cases ##\nabla \times \vec{P} = 0 ##." So what does he mean about cylindrical symmetry and why a bar electret is not such a case ?
 
Griffith's seems to be talking about the polarization ## \vec{P} ## in the material, and not considering edge effects. It is well known from E&M, that in the case of a dielectric sphere in a uniform electric field, the polarization inside the sphere is uniform. This also is the case for a cylinder that is transverse to the electric field. I'll see if I can find a couple of "links" to these very special cases. In general, for odd geometries, the resulting polarization ## \vec{P} ## is not uniform when the dielectric object is placed in uniform electric field, and consequently, the derivative ## \nabla \times \vec{P} ## does not vanish. Let me try to find a couple of "links" on the two special dielectric geometries: See: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electric-field-of-a-charged-dielectric-sphere.890319/ and https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ormly-polarized-cylinder.941830/#post-5956930
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K