Gauss' law in differential form

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differential form of Gauss' law, highlighting the difference between the equations $$\nabla\cdot\mathbf E=4\pi\rho$$ and $$\nabla\cdot\mathbf E=\rho/\epsilon_0$$ due to the choice of unit systems. Participants note that while SI units are commonly used, the cgs system is still prevalent in theoretical physics, particularly among particle physicists. There are pros and cons to each system, with some expressing a preference for SI due to its clarity and practicality, especially regarding the treatment of charge. The conversation also touches on the complexity of using multiple parameters in equations, with differing opinions on the necessity of certain units. Ultimately, the choice of unit system can affect the clarity and convenience of electromagnetic equations.
Leo Liu
Messages
353
Reaction score
156
Homework Statement
.
Relevant Equations
.
My book claims that the diff. form of Gauss' law is
$$\nabla\cdot\mathbf E=4\pi\rho$$
Can someone tell me why it isn't ##\nabla\cdot\mathbf E=\rho/\epsilon_0##?
1628476968434.png
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Delta2 and Leo Liu
I'm sure @TSny would go into more detail but trust me you do not wish to do that and he has chosen not to. Just get used to different factors of 4pi and epsilon and mu in equations and understand there is no problem. The pictures in your head should not depend upon these details.
 
  • Like
Likes Leo Liu
hutchphd said:
I'm sure @TSny would go into more detail but trust me you do not wish to do that and he has chosen not to. Just get used to different factors of 4pi and epsilon and mu in equations and understand there is no problem. The pictures in your head should not depend upon these details.
Thanks. But why do we need two sets of units for EM? Doesn't SI suffice all of our needs?
 
History and politics
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Delta2 and Leo Liu
Leo Liu said:
Thanks. But why do we need two sets of units for EM? Doesn't SI suffice all of our needs?
You could use SI for everything. It is not always handy though.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Both systems have their pluses and minuses.
Conventionally, theoretical physics, especially particle physicists, tend to go with cgs. But today there seems to be a strong trend to go rationalized mks, aka SI. Personally I won't deal with cgs though that is what I had to deal with in my own introductory physics course. A long time ago, thank goodness.

One thing I don't like about cgs is that it has no separate unit for charge Q. For an EE like myself that is unacceptable. I'll let the particle physicists defend cgs.

Of course, the presence/absence of Q is a tradeoff of sorts. In general, increasing the number of characters in a vocabulary shortens the text but at the expense of extra characters in the "alphabet". Cf. English vs. Chinese.

Another example is avoidance of extra parameters even within a given system. Some teachers prefer a minimum of parameters, others like abbreviated text. E.g. you can avoid ## \bf D ## and ## \bf H ## since ## \bf D = \epsilon \bf E ## and ## \bf B = \mu \bf H ## but personally I find that awkward. Clutters the Maxwell equations, for example. Richard Feynman even avoids using ## \mu ##, sticking to ## c ## and ## \epsilon ##. If you're SI it makes his cgs-based Lectures hard to follow at times.

Etc.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Leo Liu and Delta2
Back
Top