How can I solve Poisson's Equation using an identity from Griffiths?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ozone
  • Start date Start date
ozone
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
Sorry guys I have a lot of trouble with proofs and could use your help with this one.

This is right out of Griffiths (problem 2.29) I have a solution manual, but I'd like to try to get a nudge in the right direction before I turn to it.

Poisson's eq:

\nabla ^2 V = - \frac{ \rho }{\epsilon }

Using an identity out of Griffiths we have \nabla ^2\left(\frac{1}{r}\right) = -4\pi \delta ^3(r)

finally we know that V(r) = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon }\int \frac{p(r')}{r} \, dr'

distributing the gradient into our function will yield
V(r) = -\frac{1}{\epsilon }\int p(r')\delta ^3(r)dr'

But I do not know what to do with the dirac delta in the final function we have arrived at.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ozone said:
Sorry guys I have a lot of trouble with proofs and could use your help with this one.

This is right out of Griffiths (problem 2.29) I have a solution manual, but I'd like to try to get a nudge in the right direction before I turn to it.

Poisson's eq:

\nabla ^2 V = - \frac{ \rho }{\epsilon }

Using an identity out of Griffiths we have \nabla ^2\left(\frac{1}{r}\right) = -4\pi \delta ^3(r)
The ##r## on the lefthand side is the distance between two points whereas the ##r## in the argument of the delta function should be the vector ##\vec{r}##.

finally we know that V(r) = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon }\int \frac{p(r')}{r} \, dr'
The potential V isn't a function of only radial distance. It's a function of all three coordinates. In my edition of Griffiths, he uses the notation V(P) to indicate it's the potential at point P. He doesn't write V(r), which implies something much different. The symbols ##p## and ##\rho## look similar, but they aren't the same symbol. Be consistent. You should also define exactly what you mean by ##r## inside the integral. How is it related to the variables of integration? Finally, ##dr'## should actually be the volume element ##d\tau##.

distributing the gradient into our function will yield
V(r) = -\frac{1}{\epsilon }\int p(r')\delta ^3(r)dr'

But I do not know what to do with the dirac delta in the final function we have arrived at.
The lefthand side should not be the potential V.

Electromagnetism is a fairly math-intensive course, so you should really make an effort to be precise with your notation. The sloppiness that you could get away with in earlier courses will really start to hinder you now. Clean it up so you can avoid making dumb errors and confusing yourself.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top