Curl of Polarization in a bar electret

AI Thread Summary
In a bar electret, the curl of polarization does not equal zero due to the presence of discontinuities at the surface/air interface, which can cause divergence in the polarization vector. While uniform polarization leads to a vanishing curl, this condition fails at boundaries where the polarization changes abruptly. Griffiths notes that in cases with spherical, cylindrical, or plane symmetry, the curl of polarization can be zero, but a bar electret does not exhibit such symmetry due to its geometry. The discussion highlights that for odd geometries, the polarization is not uniform under an external electric field, resulting in a non-zero curl. Understanding these principles is essential for analyzing the behavior of electrets and their polarization characteristics.
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 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 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:
I would like to use a pentaprism with some amount of magnification. The pentaprism will be used to reflect a real image at 90 degrees angle but I also want the reflected image to appear larger. The distance between the prism and the real image is about 70cm. The pentaprism has two reflecting sides (surfaces) with mirrored coating and two refracting sides. I understand that one of the four sides needs to be curved (spherical curvature) to achieve the magnification effect. But which of the...
Back
Top