Gauss' Differential law intuition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding Gauss' differential law, specifically the relationship expressed in the equation ∇⋅E = ρ/ε₀. Participants explore the physical interpretation of the ε₀ term and seek a derivation of Gauss's Law without relying on the integral form. The conversation includes attempts at mathematical proofs and clarifications of concepts related to divergence and charge density.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the physical significance of ε₀ in the context of divergence and charge density.
  • Another suggests that a derivation of Gauss's Law from Coulomb's Law might clarify the role of ε₀.
  • A participant mentions a proof they derived but questions its validity, indicating potential issues with the application of the divergence operator.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of clarity regarding the variables used in the proof, particularly the role of the location vector.
  • There is a suggestion that the Divergence Theorem may be relevant for transitioning from the integral to the differential form of Gauss's Law.
  • The concept of the Dirac Delta function is introduced as a necessary tool for dealing with point charges in the context of the proof.
  • One participant requests a visual explanation of the relationship between the divergence of the electric field and the flux through surfaces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to derive Gauss's Law or the interpretation of ε₀. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the mathematical proofs and the underlying concepts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of the sifting property and the divergence operator's application. The discussion also highlights the dependence on definitions and the need for clarity in mathematical expressions.

THE HARLEQUIN
Messages
52
Reaction score
4
Hi ,
while trying to prove gauss law for electric field from gauss theorem i came up with this problem .
as Gauss' differential law expresses
∇⋅E = ρ/εο

what i get from that is ... the divergence of electric field which is the flux density is related to the charge density ...but i can't get the epsilon part ( like the physical relation of its with divergence ) .
i tried to prove it without using solely the understanding of divergence but failed .. but i believe its possible to come up with a logical explanation .
Any mathematical proof with physical explanation will be appreciated ( i don't want to see Gauss differential law proved from Gauss integral law btw :3 )
thanks in advance .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It sounds like what you are after is a derivation of Gauss's Law from Coulomb's Law, since Coulomb's Law gives the official definition of ##\epsilon_0##. There's such a derivation here (you need to click on the 'show' link on that page).
 
andrewkirk said:
It sounds like what you are after is a derivation of Gauss's Law from Coulomb's Law, since Coulomb's Law gives the official definition of ##\epsilon_0##. There's such a derivation here (you need to click on the 'show' link on that page).
thanks andrewkirk ...
i have seen this already .. but the problem is i am not familiar with the sifting property ... think you have any simpler process of deriving this ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
THE HARLEQUIN said:
i can't get the epsilon part

It's basically just a proportionality constant that comes in because of the units that you're using (SI a.k.a. MKS). In Gaussian units, the right-hand side is 4πρ.

THE HARLEQUIN said:
i am not familiar with the sifting property

Sifting property? :oldconfused:
 
hmmm i have derived a proof.. but don't know if its ok :/

btw it would be great if u could explain this "sum of divergence of the electric field throughout the volume is sum of the flux through the surfaces " with some animation or something. i know they will be the same but having trouble visualizing this. @jtbell
 

Attachments

  • 1448136194605.jpg
    1448136194605.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 469
THE HARLEQUIN said:
hmmm i have derived a proof.. but don't know if its ok :/
I can see problems with it. Firstly, the divergence operator can't pass through the ##\frac{1}{r^3}## factor without justification, as ##r## depends on ##x, y, z##. Secondly, it's not clear what the role of ##r## is, as there are no words explaining the meaning of the various variables. ##\vec{r}## appears intended to be a location vector, but the location of what, relative to what?

It looks to me as though in the last step you may be essentially paralleling the Divergence Theorem, which is what's used to get from the integral form to the differential form.

The most natural way to prove Gauss's Law, it seems to me, is to use Coulomb's Law to prove the Integral Form of Gauss's Law and then use the Divergence theorem to prove the Differential Form from that.

If you don't want to go that way, I think you will have to come to terms with the Dirac Delta, because the charge is supposed to reside in a zero-dimensional point, which is exactly the sort of thing Dirac Delta is designed to cope with. The sifting property referred to in the proof is simply that, if ##a\leq c\leq b##, then:
$$\int_a^b f(x)\delta(x-c)dx=f(c)$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
894
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K