Equivalence principle and the Uniqueness theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence principle and the uniqueness theorem in the context of electromagnetic fields, specifically focusing on Maxwell's equations in the frequency domain. Participants explore the implications of boundary conditions and the necessary information required to compute fields within a bounded domain.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the equivalence theorem requires knowledge of both electric and magnetic fields, including all components on the boundary, while the uniqueness theorem only requires the tangential component of one field type.
  • Another participant suggests that boundary conditions and initial conditions are necessary for the electromagnetic field, and that the Green's function should be the retarded Green's function, which applies to the entire space.
  • A different participant questions the relevance of initial conditions in the frequency domain, asserting that only boundary conditions are applicable and that the presence of a source-free solution is accounted for in both the Stratton-Chu solution and the uniqueness theorem.
  • One participant expresses unfamiliarity with the engineering approach, indicating that they believe harmonic time dependence suffices for boundary value problems.
  • A participant discusses the Helmholtz equation and agrees that assigning values of the magnetic vector potential on the boundary is sufficient for uniquely determining the field, but emphasizes that this does not address the additional information needed for effective calculations in the Stratton-Chu integration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the necessity of initial conditions and the sufficiency of boundary conditions in the frequency domain. There are competing views on the implications of the equivalence theorem versus the uniqueness theorem, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on boundary conditions and the role of the Green's function in the context of electromagnetic field calculations. There are unresolved questions about the relationship between the information required for unique determination of fields and the information needed for effective calculation.

Unconscious
Messages
77
Reaction score
12
We work with Maxwell's equations in the frequency domain.
Let's consider a bounded open domain ## V ## with boundary ## \partial V ##.

1. The equivalence theorem tells me that if the field sources in ## V ## are assigned and if the fields in the points of ## \partial V ## are assigned, then I can compute the field in each point of ## V ## as ( Stratton-Chu solution):

$$\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r})=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_V\left( \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\nabla'\psi-j\omega\mu\psi\mathbf{J} \right)dV+\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\partial V}(\mathbf{n}_0\cdot\mathbf{E})\nabla'\psi-j\omega\psi(\mathbf{n}_0\times\mathbf{B})+(\mathbf{n}_0\times\mathbf{E})\times\nabla'\psi)dS$$
$$\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_V\left( \mu\mathbf{J}\times\nabla'\psi \right)dV+\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\partial V}(\mathbf{n}_0\cdot\mathbf{B})\nabla'\psi-j\frac{\omega\psi}{c^2}(\mathbf{n}_0\times\mathbf{E})+(\mathbf{n}_0\times\mathbf{B})\times\nabla'\psi dS$$

where ##\psi=\frac{e^{-jkR}}{R}## is the Green function.

2. The uniqueness theorem tells me that if only the tangential component of only the electric field (or only the magnetic field) on ## \partial V## is assigned, then the field in the points inside ## V ## is uniquely determined.

I wonder then: why it seems that for the equivalence theorem it is necessary to know the entire field (both electric and magnetic and both normal and tangential components) on ## \partial V ##, while the uniqueness theorem needs much less information ? Is it just a question of calculation? In the sense that perhaps it is true that less information is needed to uniquely determine the field, but then to actually calculate it we do not know how to do it if we do not have all the information that the equivalence theorem requires on ## \partial V ##?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
I think in this case you need the boundary conditions as well as initial conditions for the em. field. You can also work in the boundary conditions into the Green's function. The Green's function you quote should be the usual retarded Green's function (i.e., the out-going wave solutions of the Helmholtz equation, i.e., the temporal part in your ansatz should be ##\exp(+\mathrm{j} \omega t)##, i.e., the engineering convention, which is opposite from the physics convention! This Green's function holds if you take the entire ##\mathbb{R}^3##, where the complete sources ##\rho## and ##\vec{j}## are defined ("microscopic electrodynamics"), i.e., in your boundary-value problem you need to add an arbitrary solution of the source-free Helmholtz equation, which then has to be found by employing the initial and boundary conditions.
 
Why do you talk about 'initial conditions'? We are working in frequency domain, so there is no 'initial time', there are only boundary conditions. No?

The eventually presence of an additional source-free solution will modify the field value on the boundary points, so this fact is automatically taken into account:
1. in the Stratton-Chu solution, by the terms in the surface integral (boundary conditions),
2. in the uniqueness theorem, by the boundary conditions again.

I don't know if you wanted to tell me anything else that I didn't understand.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so familiar with the engineering approach. So if you just look at the harmonic time dependence, i.e., the Helmholtz equations boundary values are sufficient.
 
When you talk about Helmoltz equation, what I think is this:

$$\nabla^2 \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r})+k^2\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r})=-\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r})$$

where ##\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r})## is the magnetic vector potential and ##\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r})## is the current density (the source).
Se, when you say that ' Helmholtz equations boundary values are sufficient ' I agree, because assigning the values of the magnetic vector potential on ##\partial V## is equivalent (in the sense that then the field is uniquely determined) to assign the values of the field on ##\partial V##.
But this does not solve the problem, it still seems that the extra-information needed by Stratton-Chu integration are only for effective calculus reasons.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
966
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
990
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K