Electric field inside hollow conductor boundary value problem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of the electric field inside a hollow conductor, specifically addressing a boundary value problem as presented in Purcell's E&M book. Participants explore the implications of Laplace's equation and boundary conditions on the potential within the conductor.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Tomkat questions why the potential inside a hollow conductor cannot be constant and not equal to the potential on the surface, despite the proof suggesting that it must be equal to phi.
  • One participant explains that defining the interior potential as a constant different from phi would create a discontinuity at the boundary, violating the conditions required by Laplace's equation.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the entire conductor, including its surface, is an equipotential.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to agree on the necessity of the boundary conditions for Laplace's equation, but Tomkat's initial confusion about the uniqueness of the solution indicates that some disagreement or uncertainty remains regarding the interpretation of the proof.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the underlying assumptions about the uniqueness theorem or the implications of boundary conditions in the context of Laplace's equation.

Tomkat
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am in Purcell's E&M book at the section explaining why the field is zero inside a hollow conductor of any shape. The proof given is that the potential function inside the conductor must obey Laplace's equation, and that the boundary of the region (in this case a rectangular metal box) is an equipotential. It calls the potential on the box some constant phi, then states that one solution (i.e. value of the potential inside the box) is that the potential is constant throughout the volume and equal to phi, the potential on the surface. Then it states by the uniqueness theorem that this is the only solution.

I understand all of this except why one couldn't say: one solution is that the potential is constant throughout the volume and *not equal to* phi (the potential on the surface of the box still being equal to phi of course). Therefore this is the only solution. The proof would come out the same, but it is this mathematical step that confuses me. Thanks,

Tomkat
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\phi here is the boundary condition for the Laplace equation. If you define the interior to be some constant other than \phi, then there must be a discontinuity at the boundary. This would not satisfy Laplace's equation since we would have to take the derivative at the discontinuity causing the Laplacian to be nonzero.
 
Considering the laplace equation, We know the whole conductor is an equipotential, including the surface of it.
 
That makes some more sense. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K