Equation of dielectric polarization & net electric field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between dielectric polarization and the net electric field in linear isotropic homogeneous dielectrics. Participants explore the implications of circular dependencies in the equations governing polarization and electric fields, as well as the mathematical complexities involved in self-consistent calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the circular dependency in the equations where polarization density P depends on the net electric field E, which in turn depends on P, suggesting it should depend on the original field E0 instead.
  • Another participant explains the derivation of surface polarization charge density σp and how it relates to the internal electric field and polarization, indicating a self-consistent mathematical approach is necessary.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while circular dependencies are common in electromagnetism, the relationship here is not strictly circular, emphasizing the difference between initial and final electric field values.
  • One participant notes that self-consistent calculations can become cumbersome, especially when dealing with non-uniform fields and polarizations, contrasting simpler cases with uniform fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of circular dependencies in the equations, with some suggesting it is a valid concern while others argue it is not strictly circular. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these dependencies.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the mathematics involved in self-consistent calculations can vary in complexity depending on the uniformity of the fields and polarizations involved, with specific geometrical factors influencing the outcomes.

OnAHyperbola
Messages
29
Reaction score
12
In a linear isotropic homogeneous dielectric,

P
= χε0*E,

where E is the net electric field from the effects of both free and bound charges.

But E=(σfreeP)/ε0

So E itself depends on P.

My concern is, isn't this circular? How can the polarization density depend on a field that itself depends on it? Shouldn't it depend on the original field between the conducting plates, E0, given by

E0free0 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At a surface boundary, you get polarization surface polarization charge density ## \sigma_p= \vec{P} \cdot \hat{n} ## where ## \hat{n} ## is the outward pointing unit vector normal to the surface. This is a result of the equation ## -\nabla \cdot P=\rho_p ## for polarization charge density. The surface charge density that arises depends on P which depends on the internal E and the surface charges that arise can affect the internal E. Yes, it is a self-consistent mathematics that is needed to solve this. For some simple geometries, ( in cases where you get a uniform ## P ## from a uniform applied field ##E_o ##), ## E_i=E_o-(C)(P)/\epsilon_o ## where ## E_o ## is the applied field and ## E_i ## is the field in the material, with C being a factor that depends upon the geometry. Since ## P=\chi \epsilon_o E_i ##, (using mks units), ## E_i ## can be found in terms of ## E_o ## and ## \chi ##, (simple algebraic solution), if the geometric factor C is known. For a plane slab C=1, and for a sphere C=1/3. (Not sure what letter the textbooks use for this factor C in electrostatics. For the analogous problem in magnetostatics, they usually use the letter D.) And note to prove the 1/3 factor for a sphere requires some rather complex mathematics involving Legendre Polynomials. It's a very useful result for problems involving dielectric spheres. The plane slab factor (C=1) is much more readily computed and can be calculated by using Gauss's law. For the plane slab, ## E_i=E_o/(1+\chi) ## which is essentially a screening factor of the electric field inside the material given by the normalized dielectric constant ## \epsilon/\epsilon_o =1+\chi ##. ..editing... to understand these concepts in more detail, I would suggest working the problem of the case of fixed uniform polarization ## P ## of on a material that occurs spontaneously without any externally applied field ## E_o ## . You can do this for a plane slab or for a sphere. Compute the electric field that arises in the material as a result of the surface polarization charge from the polarization ## P ##. (The polarization ## P ## has no local effect of the electric field at that point. The only sources of electric field is the surface polarization charge density that arises at the boundaries. And assume in this case the the electric field that arises does not affect the polarization ## P ##. This is a simpler case than that of a material that has ## P=\epsilon_o \chi E ## , but a good one to illustrate the concept of surface polarization charge.)
 
Last edited:
Well, one should be prepared for circular dependencies when studying electromagnetism (afterall its the circular dependency between electric and magnetic field that makes the magic of an EM wave happen) however here its not exactly circular

It is ##E=E_0-\frac{P}{\epsilon_0}## or ##E_0-E=\frac{P}{\epsilon_0}## which basically tell us that the Polarization depends on the initial and final value of E-field, it is the difference between them as we intuitively understand it pretty much...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
Just an additional comment: The self-consistent calculation such as this one is a little tricky when you first see it, but the algebra is reasonably straightforward, at least for cases where the final result is a uniform field ## E_i ## and uniform polarization ## P ##. The mathematics for self-consistent calculations can get quite cumbersome in cases where the final result is a non-uniform field with a non-uniform polarization. Things would be very simple if the applied external field ## E_o ## were the field ## E_i ## inside the material as well, but oftentimes that is not the case.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
476