I "Energy Type Functionals" in Jackson

AI Thread Summary
In Jackson's discussion on energy type functionals, he introduces a variational approach to solving the Laplace and Poisson equations, leading to the identification of the scalar potential and charge density. The functional presented includes terms that appear to double count electrostatic energy, raising questions about the necessity of this formulation. It is clarified that the second term in the functional does not represent electrostatic energy but is derived from the need to construct an energy functional that satisfies the equations of motion. The derivation of this functional involves integrating by parts and applying variational principles to obtain the correct expression for energy. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the origin and interpretation of the functional in deriving electrostatic field equations.
Luke Tan
Messages
29
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Why does Jackson's "Energy Type Functionals" seem to double count the energy?
In section 1.12 Variational Approach to the Solution of the Laplace and Poisson Equations, Jackson mentions that in electrostatics, we can consider "energy type functionals". He gives, for Dirichlet Boundary Conditions,
$$I[\psi]=\frac{1}{2}\int_{V}\nabla\psi\cdot\nabla\psi d^3x-\int_{V}g\psi d^3 x$$
After variation, he then finds the equations of motion,
$$\nabla^2\psi=-g$$
This would intuitively lead me to make the identification of ##\psi=\phi## as the scalar potential, and ##g=\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}## to be the charge density. However, substituting this into the functional gives
$$I[\psi]=\frac{1}{2}\int_{V}|\vec{E}|^2d^3x-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\int_{V}\rho\phi d^3x$$
The first term is the electrostatic energy, and the second is the electrostatic energy too. Doesn't this double count the energy? While I understand that if energy is minimized, twice the energy is minimized too, why must we double count the energy in order to get the correct equations of motion? Why can't we just minimize this functional?
$$I[\psi]=\frac{1}{2}\int_{V}|\vec{E}|^2d^3x$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why should the functional be the field energy to begin with? It's just a functional letting you derive the electrostatic field equations given the source ##g=\rho/\epsilon_0##.

To get the field energy (as well as momentum and angular momentum) from variational principles you need to analyze the action functional and apply Noether's theorem to the relativistic space-time symmetries (temporal and spatial translations, rotations, Lorentz boosts, in short the proper orthochronous Poincare group).
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
Luke Tan said:
I[\psi]=\frac{1}{2}\int_{V}|\vec{E}|^2d^3x-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\int_{V}\rho\phi d^3x
The first term is the electrostatic energy, and the second is the electrostatic energy too.

No, the second term is not the electrostatic energy. The electrostatic energy is given by \mathcal{E} = \frac{1}{2}\int d^{3}x \ \rho (x) \ \varphi (x). If you use \rho = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \nabla \cdot \vec{E} = - \frac{1}{4 \pi} \nabla^{2}\varphi , and integrate by parts, you find \frac{1}{2}\int d^{3}x \ \rho (x) \ \varphi (x) = \frac{1}{8 \pi} \int d^{3}x \ \nabla \varphi \cdot \nabla \varphi = \frac{1}{8 \pi} \int d^{3}x \ \vec{E} \cdot \vec{E} . So, if you rearrange the terms, you find \mathcal{E} - \int d^{3}x \ \rho (x) \varphi (x) = \int d^{3}x \left( \frac{1}{8 \pi} \nabla \varphi \cdot \nabla \varphi - \rho \ \varphi \right) = -\frac{1}{2} \int d^{3}x \ \rho (x) \varphi (x) . Clearly, the expression in the middle (which is the I[\varphi] of Jackson) is not double the electrostatic energy.
Now, the meaningful question (which I will answer) is: where did Jackson get his functional from? Well, he knew that \nabla^{2}\varphi + 4 \pi \rho = 0. So, he needs to construct A[\varphi] such that \frac{\delta A}{\delta \varphi} = - \left( \nabla^{2}\varphi + 4 \pi \rho \right) . The minus sign is there for convenience and allows us to interpret A[\varphi] as “energy functional”. Assuming that the functional A exists, we consider the functional A[\psi_{\lambda}] evaluated along the straight line “path” \psi_{\lambda}(x) = \lambda \varphi (x) + (1 - \lambda ) \psi_{0}(x) , \ \ \ \ \ 0 \leq \lambda \leq 1 , that begins at the point \psi_{0}(x) = 0 and end at \psi_{1}(x) = \varphi (x). The derivative of the functional A[\psi_{\lambda}] with respect to \lambda is \frac{d}{d\lambda}A[\psi_{\lambda}] = \int d^{3}x \frac{\delta A}{\delta \psi_{\lambda}} \frac{\partial \psi_{\lambda}}{\partial \lambda} . Now, using \frac{\delta A}{\delta \psi_{\lambda}} = - \left( \nabla^{2} \psi_{\lambda} + 4 \pi \rho \right), \ \ \ \ \frac{\partial \psi_{\lambda}(x)}{\partial \lambda} = \varphi (x), we find
\frac{d}{d\lambda}A[\psi_{\lambda}] = - \int d^{3}x \left( \lambda \ \nabla^{2}\varphi + 4 \pi \rho (x) \right) \varphi (x) . Integrating from \lambda = 0 to \lambda = 1, we find A[\psi_{1}] \equiv A[\varphi] = \int d^{3}x \left( - \frac{1}{2} \varphi \nabla^{2}\varphi - 4 \pi \rho (x) \varphi (x) \right) + \mbox{Const.} \ , where the constant term is A[\psi_{0}]. Finally, integrating the first term by parts gives us the wanted “energy functional” (up to additive constant) A[\varphi] = \int d^{3}x \left( \frac{1}{2} \nabla \varphi \cdot \nabla \varphi - 4 \pi \ \rho (x) \varphi (x) \right) .
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and vanhees71
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top