Electric field due to polarized object

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions necessary for the electric field to be equal for two objects of the same size and shape, one being polarized and the other having surface and volume charge densities. The conversation explores theoretical aspects of electric fields and dipole potentials.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention that specific conditions regarding polarization must be satisfied for the electric fields of the two objects to be equal.
  • One participant provides a detailed mathematical justification involving the potential of a dipole and the dipole moment per unit volume, including integrals over the source charge distribution.
  • Another participant reiterates the mathematical proof regarding the dipole potential and the relationship between the dipole moment and the electric field.
  • A later reply indicates that the explanation provided helped clarify the initial confusion about the conditions for equal electric fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to agree on the mathematical framework presented, but there is no explicit consensus on the initial conditions necessary for the electric fields to be equal, as the discussion primarily focuses on the justification rather than resolving the initial question.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex mathematical expressions and integrals that may depend on specific definitions and assumptions not fully explored in the thread.

VVS2000
Messages
150
Reaction score
17
TL;DR
So I am given the conditions necessary for the electric field to be equal for given two objects of same size and shape, one of which is polarized and the other has some surface and volume charge densities as shown in the diagram
16377788745095814392662940793349.jpg
16377789157864281810467250891417.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VVS2000 said:
Summary:: So I am given the conditions necessary for the electric field to be equal for given two objects of same size and shape, one of which is polarized and the other has some surface and volume charge densities as shown in the diagram

View attachment 292998View attachment 292999
So you are. Is there a question you wish to ask?
 
kuruman said:
So you are. Is there a question you wish to ask?
Yeah, they have mentioned the given 2 conditions regarding polarization must be satisfied for electric fields of the given 2 objects to be equal
I still don't know how
 
The justification is a standard proof. You might have come across the potential of a dipole ##\phi(\mathbf{r}) = \dfrac{\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{r}}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^3}##. Therefore if a material has a dipole moment per unit volume ##\mathbf{P} = \dfrac{d\mathbf{p}}{dV}##, the dipole potential is\begin{align*}
\phi(\mathbf{r}) &= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{R}) \cdot (\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|^3} d^3 \mathbf{R}
\end{align*}where ##\mathbf{R}## is the integration variable over the source charge distribution (contained with in ##\mathscr{V}##). Letting ##\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial R_x}, \frac{\partial}{\partial R_y}, \frac{\partial}{\partial R_z} \right)## denote differentiation with respect to the coordinates of ##\mathbf{R}##, notice now that\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \dfrac{\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} &= \sum_i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial R_i} \dfrac{P_i(\mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \\
&= \sum_i \left[ \dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \dfrac{\partial P_i}{\partial R_i} + P_i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial R_i} \dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \right] \\
&= \sum_i \left[ \dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \dfrac{\partial P_i}{\partial R_i} + P_i \dfrac{(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R})_i}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|^3} \right] \\
&= \dfrac{\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} + \dfrac{\mathbf{P} \cdot (\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|^3}
\end{align*}and therefore\begin{align*}
\phi(\mathbf{r}) &= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}}\left[ \nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \dfrac{\mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} - \dfrac{\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \right] d^3 \mathbf{R} \\
&= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\partial \mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}} dS- \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} d^3 \mathbf{R} \\

&= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\partial \mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\sigma_{\mathrm{b}}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} dS + \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\rho_{\mathrm{b}}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} d^3 \mathbf{R}
\end{align*}upon defining ##\sigma_{\mathrm{b}} \equiv \mathbf{P} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}}## and ##\rho_{\mathrm{b}} \equiv - \nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc, berkeman, TSny and 1 other person
ergospherical said:
The justification is a standard proof. You might have come across the potential of a dipole ##\phi(\mathbf{r}) = \dfrac{\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{r}}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^3}##. Therefore if a material has a dipole moment per unit volume ##\mathbf{P} = \dfrac{d\mathbf{p}}{dV}##, the dipole potential is\begin{align*}
\phi(\mathbf{r}) &= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{R}) \cdot (\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|^3} d^3 \mathbf{R}
\end{align*}where ##\mathbf{R}## is the integration variable over the source charge distribution (contained with in ##\mathscr{V}##). Letting ##\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial R_x}, \frac{\partial}{\partial R_y}, \frac{\partial}{\partial R_z} \right)## denote differentiation with respect to the coordinates of ##\mathbf{R}##, notice now that\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \dfrac{\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} &= \sum_i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial R_i} \dfrac{P_i(\mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \\
&= \sum_i \left[ \dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \dfrac{\partial P_i}{\partial R_i} + P_i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial R_i} \dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \right] \\
&= \sum_i \left[ \dfrac{1}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \dfrac{\partial P_i}{\partial R_i} + P_i \dfrac{(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R})_i}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|^3} \right] \\
&= \dfrac{\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} + \dfrac{\mathbf{P} \cdot (\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R})}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|^3}
\end{align*}and therefore\begin{align*}
\phi(\mathbf{r}) &= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}}\left[ \nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \dfrac{\mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} - \dfrac{\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \right] d^3 \mathbf{R} \\
&= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\partial \mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}} dS- \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} d^3 \mathbf{R} \\

&= \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\partial \mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\sigma_{\mathrm{b}}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} dS + \dfrac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\mathscr{V}} \dfrac{\rho_{\mathrm{b}}}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{R}|} d^3 \mathbf{R}
\end{align*}upon defining ##\sigma_{\mathrm{b}} \equiv \mathbf{P} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}}## and ##\rho_{\mathrm{b}} \equiv - \nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \cdot \mathbf{P}##.
Wow, now I understood
Thanks
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff and berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K