Help with proving Thomson's theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sturk200
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving Thomson's theorem, which states that the electrostatic energy in a region bounded by fixed surfaces with total charge is minimized when the surfaces are equipotential. The electrostatic energy is expressed as W = (ε₀/2)∫|E|²d³x, and the potential satisfies Laplace's equation (∇²Φ = 0) in charge-free regions. The condition ∂Φ/∂n = 0 indicates that the electric field is zero at the surface, leading to the conclusion that the potential Φ must be constant across the surfaces, confirming their equipotential nature.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and electric fields
  • Familiarity with Laplace's equation (∇²Φ = 0)
  • Knowledge of variational principles in physics
  • Proficiency in vector calculus, particularly gradient and divergence operations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the uniqueness theorem in the context of electrostatics
  • Learn about the implications of boundary conditions on potential functions
  • Explore the application of Gauss's law in electrostatics
  • Investigate the physical interpretation of equipotential surfaces in conductors
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electromagnetism, particularly those interested in electrostatics and energy minimization principles in charged systems.

Sturk200
Messages
168
Reaction score
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
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:
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   Reactions: Charles Link

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
594
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K