Finding the equation a potential must satisfy in order to minimize E

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wavefunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potential
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on deriving the equation that the electric potential function ϕ(x_1, x_2, x_3) must satisfy to minimize the average value of the square of its gradient within a volume V. The key result is that minimizing this average leads to Laplace's Equation, ∇²ϕ = 0, indicating that the electrostatic potential satisfies this condition in regions with zero charge density. The participant further clarifies that using the Poisson equation, ∇²ϕ = -ρ/ε₀, is necessary when charge density is present, demonstrating the relationship between energy density and electric fields.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, specifically gradient and divergence operations.
  • Familiarity with electrostatics concepts, including electric potential and electric fields.
  • Knowledge of differential equations, particularly Laplace's and Poisson's equations.
  • Basic grasp of energy density in electric fields, defined as ρ = (1/2)ε₀|E·E|.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of Laplace's Equation in electrostatics.
  • Explore the implications of Poisson's Equation in regions with non-zero charge density.
  • Investigate the relationship between energy minimization principles and field equations in physics.
  • Learn about variational methods in calculus of variations as they apply to physical systems.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those specializing in electromagnetism, as well as mathematicians interested in applied mathematics and differential equations.

Wavefunction
Messages
99
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



Find an expression involving the function [itex]ϕ(x_1, x_2, x_3)[/itex] that has a minimum average value of the
square of its gradient within a certain volume V of space.

If ϕ is the electric potential, [itex]\vec{E} = -\nabla ϕ[/itex] is the electric field, and [itex]ρ = \frac{1}{2} ϵ_0|\vec{E}\cdot\vec{E}|[/itex] is the energy density of
the electric field, this result tells us what equation the electric potential must satisfy to minimize
the total energy.


Homework Equations



(1)[itex]\frac{∂f}{∂ϕ}+\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{∂}{∂x_i}\frac{∂f}{∂ϕ'_i} = 0[/itex] where [itex]ϕ'_i[/itex] are the partial derivatives of [itex]ϕ[/itex]

(2)min[itex](\frac{1}{V}\iiint ϕ dV) = \nabla ϕ \cdot \nabla ϕ[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



First, since minimizing the average value of [itex]ϕ[/itex] yields a function [itex]\nabla ϕ \cdot \nabla ϕ[/itex] I will use this as my functional since it must satisfy (1). Doing so yields:

[itex]\frac{∂f}{∂ϕ}= 0[/itex] and [itex]\nabla \cdot [\frac{∂(\nabla ϕ \cdot \nabla ϕ)}{∂(\nabla ϕ)}] = 0[/itex]

The second part of (1) yields:

[itex]2\nabla \cdot \nabla ϕ =0[/itex] or alternatively, [itex]\nabla^2 ϕ = 0[/itex] (Laplace's Equation)

Now this makes sense to me ( or at least tells me that I'm on the right track) since I know that the electrostatic potential does satisfy this equation; however, I know that Laplace's equation is a simpler case of Poisson's equation and when I plug my result in using [itex]\vec{E} = -\nabla ϕ[/itex] I get [itex]\nabla \cdot \vec{E} = 0[/itex] which is only true if the charge density inside of the object is zero. So here's my question should I have gotten the more general Poisson equation, or am I overthinking this whole thing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wavefunction said:

Homework Statement



Find an expression involving the function [itex]ϕ(x_1, x_2, x_3)[/itex] that has a minimum average value of the
square of its gradient within a certain volume V of space.

If ϕ is the electric potential, [itex]\vec{E} = -\nabla ϕ[/itex] is the electric field, and [itex]ρ = \frac{1}{2} ϵ_0|\vec{E}\cdot\vec{E}|[/itex] is the energy density of
the electric field, this result tells us what equation the electric potential must satisfy to minimize
the total energy.


Homework Equations



(1)[itex]\frac{∂f}{∂ϕ}+\sum_{i=1}^3\frac{∂}{∂x_i}\frac{∂f}{∂ϕ'_i} = 0[/itex] where [itex]ϕ'_i[/itex] are the partial derivatives of [itex]ϕ[/itex]

(2)min[itex](\frac{1}{V}\iiint ϕ dV) = \iiint \nabla ϕ \cdot \nabla ϕ dV[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



First, since minimizing the average value of [itex]ϕ[/itex] yields a function [itex]\nabla ϕ \cdot \nabla ϕ[/itex] I will use this as my functional since it must satisfy (1). Doing so yields:

[itex]\frac{∂f}{∂ϕ}= 0[/itex] and [itex]\nabla \cdot [\frac{∂(\nabla ϕ \cdot \nabla ϕ)}{∂(\nabla ϕ)}] = 0[/itex]

The second part of (1) yields:

[itex]2\nabla \cdot \nabla ϕ =0[/itex] or alternatively, [itex]\nabla^2 ϕ = 0[/itex] (Laplace's Equation)

Now this makes sense to me ( or at least tells me that I'm on the right track) since I know that the electrostatic potential does satisfy this equation; however, I know that Laplace's equation is a simpler case of Poisson's equation and when I plug my result in using [itex]\vec{E} = -\nabla ϕ[/itex] I get [itex]\nabla \cdot \vec{E} = 0[/itex] which is only true if the charge density inside of the object is zero. So here's my question should I have gotten the more general Poisson equation, or am I overthinking this whole thing?

I think I have figured it out I actually need to use (2) as a constraint on (1):

[itex]f+μg = \frac{\phi}{V} + μ\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \phi[/itex] and (1) becomes [itex]\frac{∂(f+μg)}{∂\phi}+\frac{∂}{∂x_i}\frac{∂(f+μg)}{∂\phi'_i}[/itex]

The first term of (1) is just [itex]\frac{1}{V}[/itex] and the second term of (1) is the same as before except multiplied by μ.

Now I have: [itex]\frac{1}{V}+μ\nabla^2\phi = 0 → \nabla^2\phi = \frac{-1}{μV}[/itex]

Because [itex]μ[/itex] is an arbitrary constant I'll define it to be: [itex]μ \equiv \frac{ε_0}{Vρ}[/itex]

Then I get the Poisson equation: [itex]\nabla^2\phi = \frac{-ρ}{ε_0}[/itex]

Now if I make the substitution [itex]\vec{E} = -\nabla \phi[/itex] I get the desired result:

[itex]\nabla \cdot \vec{E} = \frac{ρ}{ε_0}[/itex]
 
I think your first answer was most likely what they were looking for. you minimised the average value of the square of the vector norm of the gradient of the potential, over a given volume. And it gave you Laplace's equation. Which is good. intuitively, it means that in a region with zero charge distribution, the EM field will hold the least amount of energy possible, while still respecting the boundary conditions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K