Integrating Electric Displacement

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the integration of electric displacement in a fixed dielectric material within a capacitor. The integral expression involves the divergence of the product of dielectric displacement and electric potential. According to the divergence theorem, this can be transformed into a surface integral. The textbook suggests that this surface integral vanishes when integrated over all space, prompting a question about the underlying reasons. Understanding the conditions under which this term disappears is crucial for grasping the principles of electrostatics as presented in Griffiths' Electrodynamics.
kNYsJakE
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Code:
Suppose the dielectric material is fixed in position and filling the capacitor, and you would have this term in the way of calculating something.

\int\nabla\cdot\left[\left(\Delta{D}\right){V}\right]{d}\tau

where D is the dielectric displacement

Now that turns into (by divergence theorem):

\int\left(\nabla{D}{V}\right)\cdot{d}a

Now my textbook says that this term would vanish if we integrate over all of space. Why is that? Thanks for your help in advance. =)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By the way, this is from pg 192 of Electrodynamics by Griffiths, if this could help..
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top