E and D fields of polarizable material

  • Thread starter Thread starter thefireman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Material
thefireman
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A semi infinite slab of material, -\infty<x<0, -\infty<z<\infty, -d/2<y<d/2
has uniform polarization P in the +y direction.

What are the E and D field along x-axis at y=0.

Homework Equations


\oint \vec{D}\cdot d\vec{a} = Q_{free enclosed}
D= \epsilon_{0}E+P

The Attempt at a Solution


If I use the integral statement, there is no free charge, D is uniformly 0.
This seems uninteresting and incorrect...as well as inconsistent with the second relation.

I already know that at the x=y=0 on the boundary, the magnitude of E field drops to 1/2 its "ideal infinite capacitor" (from surface charge due to polarization). IF D were always 0 and P is uniform, than E would have to be uniform, which it is not.

So why is the integral invalid? I recall qualitatively, that the E and D field are inversely related within the material i.e. if one increased the other decreased...outside trivially they are equal, with a dielectric multiplication. How do I correctly calculate D?

Thanks in advance




 
Physics news on Phys.org
thefireman said:

The Attempt at a Solution


If I use the integral statement, there is no free charge, D is uniformly 0.
This seems uninteresting and incorrect...as well as inconsistent with the second relation.

I already know that at the x=y=0 on the boundary, the magnitude of E field drops to 1/2 its "ideal infinite capacitor" (from surface charge due to polarization). IF D were always 0 and P is uniform, than E would have to be uniform, which it is not.

So why is the integral invalid? I recall qualitatively, that the E and D field are inversely related within the material i.e. if one increased the other decreased...outside trivially they are equal, with a dielectric multiplication. How do I correctly calculate D?

Thanks in advance

The integral is always valid, but not always useful: how do you know that D is uniform and exhibits planar symmetry?

In vacuum, you can tell the symmetries of E by looking at the charge distribution...if the charge distribution is symmetrical, so is E. The same does not hold true for D. The reason is that while E is always completely determined by its divergence (which is proportional to the charge) D is not. Because unlike curl(E), curl(D) is not always zero...I'll leave it to you to determine where curl(D)=curl(P) does not equal zero in this case...:wink:

The symmetries of E are always determined (at least in electrostatics) by the symmetries of the charge distribution, but the symmetries of D are only determined by the symmetries of the free charge distribution in cases where curl(D)=0 everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Ok, i knew that fact, but had forgotten that setting integral to Qenclosed required assuming information about D. Thanks.
One final question. I need to relate the E field outside this faux capacitor to that inside...specifically,
Find a relationship between the electric fields in the y = 0 plane at x = a and
x = -a.
If I do a line integral E dl around a square bounded by x=-a and x=a, at symmetric y values, the y line integrals should cancel by symmetry, the total the sum should be 0... essentially the E field outside at x=a should be negative that inside at x=-a? This doesn't make sense to me, an infinite fringe field outside? shouldn't it die off the further we go into vaccum?

thanks again!
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top