I How could electric susceptibilbility depend on position?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of Griffiths' statement regarding electric susceptibility and its dependence on position within a dielectric. It clarifies that the bound-charge density is zero when the polarization vector, P, is constant throughout the dielectric. However, at the surface of the dielectric, bound-surface charges arise, calculated using the surface divergence of P. The conversation highlights that if P were zero, the displacement field D would not align with expected values, indicating a discrepancy. Ultimately, the susceptibility varies across the boundary, reflecting different values on either side.
Ahmed1029
Messages
109
Reaction score
40
In the statement encircled, what does Griffiths actually mean?
Screenshot_2022-06-07-15-17-53-45_e2d5b3f32b79de1d45acd1fad96fbb0f.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a bit "nebulous". I guess what he considers is the effective (bound) surface charge of a homogeneous and isotropic dielectric.

[edit: corrected in view of #3]
The bound-charge density within the dielectric is
$$\rho=-\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{P},$$
which is 0, for ##\vec{P}=\text{const}##, within the dielectric. Trivially it's also 0 outside the dielectric, where is vacuum, i.e., no charges at all.

At the surface you have, however bound-surface charges, which you get by taking the "surface divergence". Let ##\vec{n}## be the surface-normal unity vector pointing out of the material. Then with a Gaussian pillbox with two sides parallel to the boundary of the dielectric, you get
$$\sigma=-\mathrm{Div} \vec{P}=\vec{n} \cdot \vec{P}.$$
 
Last edited:
vanhees71 said:
which is, for P→=0, within the dielectric
You probably mean ##\vec{P}=\text{constant}## inside the dielectric because if it was zero then ##\vec{D}=\epsilon_0\vec{E}+\vec{P}=\epsilon_0\vec{E}## inside the dielectric which doesn't look right...
 
At the boundary the susceptibility has different values on the two sides of the boundary.
 
  • Like
Likes Ahmed1029 and vanhees71
I was using the Smith chart to determine the input impedance of a transmission line that has a reflection from the load. One can do this if one knows the characteristic impedance Zo, the degree of mismatch of the load ZL and the length of the transmission line in wavelengths. However, my question is: Consider the input impedance of a wave which appears back at the source after reflection from the load and has traveled for some fraction of a wavelength. The impedance of this wave as it...