Undergrad 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'm working through something and want to make sure I understand the physics. In a system with three wave components at 120° phase separation, the total energy calculation depends on how we treat them: If coherent (add amplitudes first, then square): E = (A₁ + A₂ + A₃)² = 0 If independent (square each, then add): E = A₁² + A₂² + A₃² = 3/2 = constant In three-phase electrical systems, we treat the phases as independent — total power is sum of individual powers. In light interference...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
454
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K