High School Gradient of scalar field is zero everywhere given boundary conditions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a scalar field ##\phi## with the property that ##\nabla^2 \phi = 0## inside a volume bounded by surface ##S##, where the gradient ##\nabla \phi## is orthogonal to ##S##. This leads to the conclusion that ##\phi## must be constant along the surface. The integral equation $$\int_{V} (\nabla \phi') \cdot (\nabla \phi') \propto \int_S \mathbf{n} \cdot (\phi' \nabla \phi')$$ is derived from Green's First Identity, which relates the volume integral of the gradient to a surface integral. The discussion highlights the importance of maintaining clarity in mathematical expressions, especially for learners. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the properties of scalar fields in physics.
etotheipi
I'm struggling with a few steps of this argument. It's given that we have a surface ##S## bounding a volume ##V##, and a scalar field ##\phi## such that ##\nabla^2 \phi = 0## everywhere inside ##S##, and that ##\nabla \phi## is orthogonal to ##S## at all points on the surface.

They say this is sufficient to deduce that ##\phi## equals a constant ##k## everywhere along the surface ##S## (I guess this is because it constrains the gradient vector to always be orthogonal to ##S##... is there a more mathematical way of putting that?) Then they perform a shift ##\phi' = \phi - k## so that ##\phi' = 0## everywhere on ##S##, and immediately write down the relation$$\int_{V} (\nabla \phi') \cdot (\nabla \phi') \propto \int_S \mathbf{n} \cdot (\phi' \nabla \phi')$$Since ##\phi' = 0## everywhere on ##S## the RHS is zero, and because the integrand on the LHS is non-negative it must be the case that ##\nabla \phi' = 0## everywhere inside ##V##, and consequently that ##\nabla \phi = 0## everywhere inside ##V##.

But I was wondering how they came up with that integral equation? Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
$$\int_{V} (\nabla \phi') \cdot (\nabla \phi') \propto \int_S \mathbf{n} \cdot (\phi' \nabla \phi')$$

But I was wondering how they came up with that integral equation? Thanks

This is the 3D equivalent of integration by parts, or Green's First Identity.
 
  • Informative
Likes etotheipi
PeroK said:
This is the 3D equivalent of integration by parts, or Green's First Identity.

Cool, I wasn't aware of this. Since ##\triangle \phi' = 0## the identity that you quoted does reduce to their statement (I suppose they were being a little sloppy by leaving out the ##dV## and ##dS##, and making up for it with a ##\propto## sign, but they are easy enough to re-insert). Thanks!
 
etotheipi said:
Cool, I wasn't aware of this. Since ##\triangle \phi' = 0## the identity that you quoted does reduce to their statement (I suppose they were being a little sloppy by leaving out the ##dV## and ##dS##, and making up for it with a ##\propto## sign, but they are easy enough to re-insert). Thanks!
Yes, especially when you are learning this stuff it pays to keep track of things like that.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
711
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
503
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K