Help with proving Thomson's theorem

  • A
  • Thread starter Sturk200
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theorem
In summary: But that's not what we want to do.In summary, the theorem states that if a number of surfaces with fixed positions are each given a total charge, the electrostatic energy in the region bounded by the surfaces is at an absolute minimum when the charges are placed in a way that makes every surface an equipotential, as seen in the case of conductors. This can be expressed through the electrostatic energy equations and the use of Laplace's equation, which leads to the boundary condition that the potential must be constant on the surface. This also implies that the potential is constant throughout the entire volume, making it the only solution to the differential equation that satisfies the boundary
  • #1
Sturk200
168
17
This is out of Jackson's electrodynamics, problem 1.15.

I am trying to prove the theorem that if a number of surfaces are fixed in position and a given total charge is placed on each surface, then the electrostatic energy in the region bounded by the surfaces is an absolute minimum when the charges are placed so that every surface is an equipotential, as happens when they are conductors.

The electrostatic energy is given by the square of the field as

##W=\frac{\epsilon_0}{2}\int|E|^2d^3x.##

In terms of the potential this is

##W=\frac{\epsilon_0}{2}\int\nabla\Phi\cdot\nabla\Phi d^3x.##

We seek an extremum in the energy by varying the energy to first order

##W(\Phi + \delta\Phi)-W(\Phi) = \epsilon_0\int\nabla\delta\Phi\cdot\nabla\Phi.##

Any two scalars ##\phi## and ##\psi## satisfy

##\int_v [\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \psi + \phi\nabla^2\psi]d^3x = \int_s \phi \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial n} da##

where the surface integral is taken over a the surface bounding the volume over which the volume integral is taken, and the derivative with respect to ##n## indicates a derivative in the direction normal to the surface. Thus the variation in the energy may be written

##W(\Phi+\delta\Phi)-W(\Phi) = \epsilon_0\bigg[ \int_s\delta\Phi\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial n} da - \int_v \delta\Phi\nabla^2\Phi d^3x\bigg]##

We assume that the region bounded by the surface charge is charge-free, and so the potential satisfies Laplace's equation (##\nabla^2\Phi=0##) in this region and the volume integral vanishes.

##\epsilon_0 \int_s\delta\Phi\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial n} da = 0##

This must be true for arbitrary ##\delta\Phi##, and therefore the integrand itself must be zero at all points on the surface

##\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial n} = 0.##

This is where I run into trouble. Assuming that the steps up to this point are correct, I do not understand how to interpret this condition physically. It seems to be saying that the electric field through the bounding surface must be zero at all points on the surface. But how does that translate to every surface being an equipotential? Any hints?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Sturk200 said:
This is out of Jackson's electrodynamics, problem 1.15.

I am trying to prove the theorem that if a number of surfaces are fixed in position and a given total charge is placed on each surface, then the electrostatic energy in the region bounded by the surfaces is an absolute minimum when the charges are placed so that every surface is an equipotential, as happens when they are conductors.

The electrostatic energy is given by the square of the field as

##W=\frac{\epsilon_0}{2}\int|E|^2d^3x.##

In terms of the potential this is

##W=\frac{\epsilon_0}{2}\int\nabla\Phi\cdot\nabla\Phi d^3x.##

We seek an extremum in the energy by varying the energy to first order

##W(\Phi + \delta\Phi)-W(\Phi) = \epsilon_0\int\nabla\delta\Phi\cdot\nabla\Phi.##

Any two scalars ##\phi## and ##\psi## satisfy

##\int_v [\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \psi + \phi\nabla^2\psi]d^3x = \int_s \phi \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial n} da##

where the surface integral is taken over a the surface bounding the volume over which the volume integral is taken, and the derivative with respect to ##n## indicates a derivative in the direction normal to the surface. Thus the variation in the energy may be written

##W(\Phi+\delta\Phi)-W(\Phi) = \epsilon_0\bigg[ \int_s\delta\Phi\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial n} da - \int_v \delta\Phi\nabla^2\Phi d^3x\bigg]##

We assume that the region bounded by the surface charge is charge-free, and so the potential satisfies Laplace's equation (##\nabla^2\Phi=0##) in this region and the volume integral vanishes.

##\epsilon_0 \int_s\delta\Phi\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial n} da = 0##

This must be true for arbitrary ##\delta\Phi##, and therefore the integrand itself must be zero at all points on the surface

##\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial n} = 0.##

This is where I run into trouble. Assuming that the steps up to this point are correct, I do not understand how to interpret this condition physically. It seems to be saying that the electric field through the bounding surface must be zero at all points on the surface. But how does that translate to every surface being an equipotential? Any hints?

Thanks!
If you use Gauss law on a sufrace just inside the surface, ## \int E \cdot \, \hat{n} dA=0 ## , because ## E ## perdendicular to ## \hat{n} dA ## is 0 everywhere because ## \frac{\partial{\Phi}}{\partial{n}}=0 ## everywhere. With this feature along with ## \nabla^2 \Phi=0 ## everywhere, we must conclude that ## \Phi= ## constant, because this is a solution to the differential equation that satisfies the boundary condition. By the uniqueness theorem, it must be the only solution. ## \\ ## One point of confusion is that I don't think ## \frac{\partial{\Phi}}{\partial{n}} ## is necessarily zero on both sides of the surface (inside and out.) I'd need to study it further, but I think the integrals must be computed inside the surfaces, and ## \frac{\partial{\Phi}}{\partial{n}} ## is simply inside (such as with a conductor), because I believe (I'm not certain), that the volume integral involving ## W ## is done inside the surfaces.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Charles Link said:
If you use Gauss law on a sufrace just inside the surface, ∫E⋅^ndA=0∫E⋅n^dA=0 \int E \cdot \, \hat{n} dA=0 , because EE E perdendicular to ^ndAn^dA \hat{n} dA is 0 everywhere because ∂Φ∂n=0∂Φ∂n=0 \frac{\partial{\Phi}}{\partial{n}}=0 everywhere. With this feature along with ∇2Φ=0∇2Φ=0 \nabla^2 \Phi=0 everywhere, we must conclude that Φ=Φ= \Phi= constant, because this is a solution to the differential equation that satisfies the boundary condition. By the uniqueness theorem, it must be the only solution.

Gotta love the uniqueness theorem. So just to be clear, the boundary condition in combination with the fact that the potential satisfies Laplace's equation in the volume, imply not only that ##\Phi=##constant on the bounding surface, but also that ##\Phi=## constant throughout the entire volume, since this is a solution to the differential equation satisfying the boundary condition?

Charles Link said:
One point of confusion is that I don't think ∂Φ∂n∂Φ∂n \frac{\partial{\Phi}}{\partial{n}} is necessarily zero on both sides of the surface (inside and out.) I'd need to study it further, but I think the integrals must be computed inside the surfaces, and ∂Φ∂n∂Φ∂n \frac{\partial{\Phi}}{\partial{n}} is simply inside (such as with a conductor), because I believe (I'm not certain), that the volume integral involving WW W is done inside the surfaces.

I think that makes sense. If you wanted to say something about ##\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial n}## on the outer surface then I think you would have to extend the volume integral to include the surface charge, then ##\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial n} ##is evaluated on the surface bounding the volume containing the surface charge. In this case it is no longer correct to say that ##\nabla^2\Phi = 0 ## in the whole volume, so you get a nonzero contribution from the volume integral and things stop working.
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link

1. What is Thomson's theorem?

Thomson's theorem, also known as Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, states that the total emissive power of a blackbody at a given temperature is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. In simpler terms, it explains the relationship between the temperature of a blackbody and the amount of radiation it emits.

2. What is the significance of Thomson's theorem?

Thomson's theorem is significant because it is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and is useful in understanding the behavior of thermal radiation. It also provides a basis for calculating the intensity of thermal radiation emitted by objects at different temperatures.

3. How is Thomson's theorem proven?

Thomson's theorem can be proven using mathematical equations and derivations, as well as experimental data. The most common method is to use Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to derive the relationship between temperature and emissive power.

4. What are the applications of Thomson's theorem?

Thomson's theorem has numerous applications in various fields such as astrophysics, engineering, and materials science. It is used to study the properties of blackbodies, design efficient radiative heaters and coolers, and understand thermal radiation in space and on Earth.

5. Are there any limitations to Thomson's theorem?

While Thomson's theorem is a fundamental law, it has some limitations. It assumes that the blackbody is in thermal equilibrium, which may not always be the case in real-world scenarios. It also does not take into account the effects of non-blackbody surfaces or the influence of other forms of energy transfer, such as convection and conduction.

Similar threads

  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
112
  • Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
906
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
753
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
366
Replies
10
Views
668
  • Classical Physics
Replies
9
Views
984
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
567
  • Classical Physics
Replies
3
Views
850
Back
Top