Griffiths' : Electrostatic Energy

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the electrostatic energy expression for a continuous charge distribution, specifically W = (ε₀/2)∫(E)²dτ. Participants clarify that as the volume of integration increases, the surface integral diminishes, while the volume integral grows due to the positive integrand. The distinction between the behavior of the electric field (E) and potential (V) at large distances is emphasized, with the surface integral evaluated at the boundary of the system. The conversation also touches on alternative methods to derive the expression, including assembling the charge distribution adiabatically and referencing Poynting's theorem for more advanced insights. Overall, the participants enhance their understanding of electrostatic energy calculations through collaborative discussion.
neutrino
Messages
2,091
Reaction score
2
Griffiths : Electrostatic Energy

I'm having a little difficulty in understanding how one arrives at the following expression for electrostatic energy of a continuous charge distribution.

W = \frac{\epsilon_o}{2}\int (\vec{E})^2d\tau

This result is obtained when the volume of integration is increased without limit in

W = \frac{\epsilon_o}{2} ( \int (\vec{E})^2d\tau + \oint V \vec{E} \cdot d\vec{a})

For large ditances from the charge V goes like \frac{1}{r} while \vec{E} goes like \frac{1}{r^2}, and the area increases as r^2. Therefore the surface integral is roughly \frac{1}{r}. Griffiths says that the volume integral must increase owing to the positive integrand. But can't we apply similar logic as above and say that volume integral also rougly goes like \frac{1}{r} as we increase of the volume of integration?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The r in the surface integral is a constant, the radius of a large sphere.
The r in the volume integral varies from 0 to the radius of the bounding sphere, so there is always small r for the volume integral.
 
What Griffiths does here is standard practice when integrating by parts, always look to eliminate the boundary term by physical argument, i.e. the potential due to some charge distribution vanishes at infinity. Like Meir said, the surface integral is evaluated only at the boudary of the system, which conveniently for us is user definable!
 
Thank you, Meir Achuz and jarvis. It understand it a bit better now. :smile:

(I actually forgot that I had posted this question, and hence the late reply :blushing: )
 
Another way to get this expression, which I always thought was the standard elementary derivation, is to assemble the distribution adiabatically, charge element by element. As the distribution is assembled, bringing in the incoming charge requires the assembler to work against the charge already in place. See any freshman text.

The fancy way, good for static or dynamic fields comes from Poynting's Thrm, which you can find in more advanced texts -- Jackson, for example.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
Happy holidays folks. So I spent some time over the Thanksgiving holidays and developed a program that renders electric field lines of swiftly moving charges according to the Liénard–Wiechert formula. The program generates static images based on the given trajectory of a charge (or multiple), and the images were compiled into a video that shows the animated field lines for harmonic movement and circular movement of a charge (or two charges). Video: The source code is available here...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
378
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
561
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
476
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K