A Help with proving Thomson's theorem

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sturk200
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the electrostatic energy is minimized when multiple fixed surfaces with total charge are at equipotential, as seen in conductors. The electrostatic energy is expressed in terms of the electric field and potential, leading to the conclusion that the variation in energy results in a condition where the normal derivative of the potential at the surface is zero. This implies that the electric field is zero at the surface, suggesting that the potential must be constant across the surface. The uniqueness theorem supports that if the potential satisfies Laplace's equation, it must be constant throughout the entire volume, confirming the equipotential condition. The participants clarify the implications of the boundary conditions and the behavior of the potential inside and outside the surfaces.
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 Charles Link
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top