Green identity, poisson equation.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Green's identities in the context of the Poisson equation, particularly focusing on the implications for electrostatic potential energy and the treatment of integrals over infinite domains. Participants explore the conditions under which certain integrals vanish and the appropriateness of coordinate systems for integration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the integral of the Poisson equation and applies Green's first identity, questioning why the surface integral vanishes under certain conditions.
  • Another participant suggests that the surface integral is zero because the potential is chosen to vanish at infinity.
  • A participant challenges the necessity of integrating over an infinite closure surface, referencing alternative theories about the nature of space.
  • Questions arise regarding the appropriate coordinate system for calculating total energy and whether to include the Jacobian in the integral calculation.
  • Another participant discusses the equivalence of using Gauss's law versus the Laplace equation for finding potential, emphasizing the efficiency of Gauss's law in symmetric cases.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of "all space" in the context of integration and the meaning of "surface" differential in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of integrating over an infinite closure surface and the implications of curvature in space. There is no consensus on the best approach to the integrals or the treatment of coordinate systems.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the complexity of integrating over infinite domains and the potential confusion regarding the application of coordinate transformations and the Jacobian. The discussion reflects various assumptions about the nature of space and the mathematical treatment of physical concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying electrostatics, mathematical physics, or anyone exploring the application of Green's identities in theoretical contexts.

Thaakisfox
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
Suppose \phi is a scalar function: R^n\to R, and it satisfies the Poisson equation:
\nabla^2 \phi=-\dfrac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}

Now I want to calculate the following integral:
\int \phi \nabla^2 \phi \,dV
So using Greens first identity I get:
\int \phi \nabla^2 \phi \,dV = \oint_S \phi \nabla \phi d\vec A -\int |\nabla \phi|^2 dV
Where S is some closed surface.
Now when we are calculating the electrostatic potential energy, we have to calculate exactly this integral, but we know the end, that:
W=-\dfrac{\varepsilon_0}{2}\int \phi \nabla^2 \phi \,dV =\dfrac{\varepsilon_0}{2}\int |\nabla \phi|^2 dV

So what I am wondering is why will, this be true:
\oint_S \phi \nabla \phi d\vec A=0
If \phi satisfies the Poisson equation??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No worries, I figured it out :D
 
Thaakisfox said:
No worries, I figured it out :D
Hallo Thaakisfox
I don't and didn't worry, thought you did. Are you able to explain the :D you figured out?
greetings Janm
 
Hello JANm.

Been a while since I posted this lol

The main thing is that since we are integrating over the whole space the closure surface is at infinity, and since the potential vanishes (this is how we choose it) in infinity the surface integral itself is zero.
 
Thaakisfox said:
Been a while since I posted this lol
The main thing is that since we are integrating over the whole space the closure surface is at infinity, and since the potential vanishes (this is how we choose it) in infinity the surface integral itself is zero.
Hello Thaakisfox
to start with what is a lol. Secondly I'm interested in: aren't you a believer of finite space theories?
greetings Janm
 
Could you be a bit more clear, on what you mean to ask by that?

A lol means "laughing out loud"...
 
You say closure surface is at infinity. The primordial Hoyle family says that isn't necessary, or yet some sort of impossible. Space is curved it is started at one point at one moment and three seconds later a finite blast fills and is a finite yet expanding universe...
 
Hi , I have a question,..in the example I am working on i got a potential \phi(r)
Now, when i calculate the total energy of the system, witht he integral over all space, should i change my result to smth like \phi(x,y,z) and then perform the integral from -oo to +oo in all the variables? ..or is it fine to calculate the integral in sferical coordinates...with integral limits of the form (0,+oo)x(0,2\pi)x(0,\pi)?
should i cnlude the jacobian (|J|=r^{2} sin(\vartheta)) in the calculation?
Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
LuisVela said:
Hi , I have a question,..in the example I am working on i got a potential \phi(r)
Hello LuisVela
Found something for you written by Maxwell: If the potential is a function of r the potential equation becomes d^2V/dr^2+2dV/(rdr)=0 he calculates this with the example of two concentric spheres.
Try to calculate the solution to the diffential equation. When volume integration is needed I think the surface differential looks like:
dS=4 pi r^2 dr
Greetings Janm
 
  • #10
Hello JANm.
I know what you mean by that. But i got the potential using Gauss law, so i actually didnt use Laplace equation, but as i understand, the two methods are equivalent, and when symmetry is present Gauss law is way cheaper to use, than laplace/poisson equation. So i thing i don't need to find the potential again, but thanks for the advice
What i had on mind was this... when they write down:
<br /> W=\dfrac{1}{2}\int_{all space} \rho \phi dV <br />
should \rho and/or \phi be calculated in cartesian coordinates only, and then perform the substitution to spherical using dv=4 \pi r^2 ?
or should i just argue that ''all space'' is reached by integrating \rho(r)\cdot \phi(r) from r=0 to r=\infty .
...Its quite frustraiting because is kinda complicated to explain.

One more thing. The integral is over all space, or over the boundaries of ''all space''?..i mean, why did you say ''surface '' differential ?
 
  • #11
Hello Luisvela
Something is wrong with the security on my computer. Written a hell of a reply to you but it vanished...
What is the volume of a sphere with radius a it the integral of 4 * pi *r^2 dr from r=0 until r=a. I hope you can get 4*pi *a^3 /3 out of that? So volume integrating over a radial function no difference in centigrade or lattitude is the easier way to make a volume integral than over x in some interval and y over some interval and z over some interval. That is my point...
greetings Janm
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
978
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K