A How to define ##\nabla \cdot D ## at the interface between dielectrics

AI Thread Summary
Maxwell's equations can describe electromagnetic effects at the interface between two dielectrics with distinct permittivities, where the normal component of the electric displacement field D is continuous, while the electric field E shows discontinuity. The challenge arises when attempting to define the divergence of D at interfaces involving three or more dielectrics, particularly at edges and vertices, where singularities complicate the situation. Standard methods, such as using Gaussian surfaces, help establish continuity conditions but fall short in these complex scenarios. The discussion emphasizes the need for a generalized approach to handle these singularities, focusing on surface divergence and curl. Ultimately, defining divergence at such interfaces remains a significant challenge in electromagnetic theory.
coquelicot
Messages
295
Reaction score
67
TL;DR Summary
Defining ##\nabla \cdot D## or ##\nabla \cdot E## at the interface between dielectrics
It is believed that Maxwell equations (together with other relations depending on the materials) are sufficient to account for any electromagnetic macroscopic effect.
The problem is that, for a Maxwell equation to hold, it must at least be defined.
Consider for example the case of two dielectrics of distinct permittivities, say ##\epsilon_1## and ##\epsilon_2##. We assume for the sake of simplicity that ##D_{conductor 1} = \epsilon_1 E_{conductor 1}## and ##D_{conductor 2} = \epsilon_2 E_{conductor 2},## which already covers a lot of dielectrics.
We also assume that the dielectrics carry no free charge, so Maxwell equation reads ##\nabla \cdot D = 0##.
Let finally restrict ourselves to the electrostatic case.

If the two dielectrics interface at a surface S, then the normal component of E is discontinuous at S, its tangential component is continuous, while the normal component of D is continuous and the tangential components of D are, in general, discontinuous.
For the field E, we could define ##\nabla \cdot E## using the Dirac distribution.
I guess something like that is possible for defining ##\nabla \cdot D##, despite I don't see exactly how (the difference between E and D is that E has only one discontinuous component).

Now, even if a Dirac distribution artifice is possible whenever the interface between two dielectrics is a surface, I see no way to define ##\nabla \cdot E## or ##\nabla \cdot D## whenever three or more dielectrics interface at an edge, or whenever several dielectric interface at a vertex point.

Any idea/knowledge to save Maxwell equations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At boundaries of two media you have to apply the integral definition of the differential operators, possibly generalized to their forms describing discontinuities. If you have no free charge, i.e., ##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{D}## using a Gaussian pill box with two of its surfaces parallel to the boundary tells you that the normal component of ##\vec{D}## is continuous, while the normal component of ##\vec{E}## is not. That's because there's a non-zero net-surface charge along the boundary, because of the different polarizability (permittivities) in the different media. from ##\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}## using a surface with two sides parallel to the boundary and using Stokes's integral theorem tells you that the components tangential to the boundary are continuous.
 
vanhees71 said:
At boundaries of two media you have to apply the integral definition of the differential operators, possibly generalized to their forms describing discontinuities. If you have no free charge, i.e., ##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{D}## using a Gaussian pill box with two of its surfaces parallel to the boundary tells you that the normal component of ##\vec{D}## is continuous, while the normal component of ##\vec{E}## is not. That's because there's a non-zero net-surface charge along the boundary, because of the different polarizability (permittivities) in the different media. from ##\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}## using a surface with two sides parallel to the boundary and using Stokes's integral theorem tells you that the components tangential to the boundary are continuous.
Thanks for your answer.
Yes, that's classic and I wrote that in the question too. Not of any help to define ##\nabla \cdot D## at the interfaces between several dielectrics unfortunately.
 
If you have a singularity at the surface, of course, you can't define a quantity on the surface. You have to describe what happens at the surface by describing the corresponding singularities, i.e., in this case by the surface divergence and surface curl.
 
vanhees71 said:
If you have a singularity at the surface, of course, you can't define a quantity on the surface. You have to describe what happens at the surface by describing the corresponding singularities, i.e., in this case by the surface divergence and surface curl.

Actually the problem is not surfaces but edges and vertices. The essential point in my question is contained in the last 3 lines.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
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...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top