I got bored and did something with the dielectric constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between the dielectric constant K and the electric field vectors E and E0. The user attempts to prove that K represents the projection of E0 onto E using linear algebra, leading to the equation K = (E ⋅ E0) / ||E||². There is confusion regarding the nature of projections, with a mention that projections are typically less than or equal to 1 in magnitude, which is challenged by the user's findings. Clarifications are made about the correct notation for projections, emphasizing that K can be expressed in terms of the electric displacement field D. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of interpreting K in the context of vector projections and dielectric properties.
Eclair_de_XII
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
91

Homework Statement


I want to prove or disprove that the dielectric constant ##K## is the projection of ##\vec E_0## onto ##\vec E## using linear algebra.

Homework Equations


##\vec E = \frac{\vec E_0}{K}##

The Attempt at a Solution


##(\vec E)⋅\vec E = (\vec E)⋅\frac{\vec E_0}{K}##
##K(\vec E)⋅\vec E = (\vec E)⋅\vec E_0##
##K \left\| \vec E \right\|^2=\vec E⋅\vec E_0##
##K=\frac{\vec E⋅\vec E_0}{\left\| \vec E \right\|^2}=proj_\vec E \vec E_0##

Since ##\left\|\vec E_0\right\| > \left\|\vec E\right\|##, ##K>1##. I'm trying to interpret ##K## as the projection of ##\vec E_0## onto ##\vec E## because I was kind of bored one day in physics lecture. I think I remember that ##proj_{\vec u} \vec v ≤ |1|## for some vectors ##\vec u## and ##\vec v##, which contradicts what I'm saying. Should I just go with ##K=\frac{C}{C_0}## since it's much simpler? I think I'm reading too much into this...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Eclair_de_XII said:
I think I'm reading too much into this...
I think so too...
Eclair_de_XII said:
##\vec E = \frac{\vec E_0}{K}##
First, what is ##E_{0}## here? I think what you meant to write is ##\mathbf{D}=K\epsilon_{0}\mathbf{E}##. Either way the projection of ##\mathbf{E}## and ##\mathbf{D}## or ##\mathbf{E_{0}}## is just
$$\text{proj}\frac{\mathbf{D}\cdot\mathbf{E}}{|\mathbf{E}|^{2}}=\frac{K\epsilon_{0} E^{2}}{E^{2}}=K\epsilon_{0}$$
 
It looks like you answered your own question, about proving or disproving it.
 
NFuller said:
Either way the projection of ##\mathbf{E}## and ##\mathbf{D}## or ##\mathbf{E_{0}}## is just

##\text{proj}\frac{\mathbf{D}\cdot\mathbf{E}}{|\mathbf{E}|^{2}}=\frac{K\epsilon_{0} E^{2}}{E^{2}}=K\epsilon_{0}##

Forgive me if I'm remembering something wrong but aren't projections usually less than or equal to 1 in magnitude? Should it not be: ##\text{proj}\frac{\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{D}}{|\mathbf{E}| |\mathbf{D}|}##? Of course, though, it's meaningless anyway, and does not represent the dielectric constant.
 
Eclair_de_XII said:
aren't projections usually less than or equal to 1 in magnitude?
No, but my notation is messed up. It should be
$$\text{proj}_{\mathbf{E}}\mathbf{D}=\frac{\mathbf{D}\cdot\mathbf{E}}{|\mathbf{E}|^{2}}\mathbf{E}$$
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top