Gradient of scalar field is zero everywhere given boundary conditions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a scalar field ##\phi## satisfying Laplace's equation (##\nabla^2 \phi = 0##) within a volume ##V## bounded by a surface ##S##, where the gradient of the scalar field is orthogonal to the surface at all points. Participants explore the mathematical reasoning behind an integral equation derived from this setup and its consequences for the gradient of the scalar field.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the integral equation $$\int_{V} (\nabla \phi') \cdot (\nabla \phi') \propto \int_S \mathbf{n} \cdot (\phi' \nabla \phi')$$ is derived in the context of the problem.
  • Another participant identifies the integral equation as the 3D equivalent of integration by parts or Green's First Identity, suggesting a connection to the mathematical framework of the discussion.
  • A further reply acknowledges that since ##\triangle \phi' = 0##, the identity mentioned does align with the earlier statement, noting a potential oversight in the omission of differential elements in the original equation.
  • There is a recognition of the importance of maintaining clarity in mathematical expressions, especially for learners.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mathematical identity being referenced and its relevance to the discussion, but there is no consensus on the clarity of the original presentation of the integral equation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the original statement may have been somewhat informal, lacking explicit differential elements, which could lead to confusion.

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
 
Physics 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
972
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K