Is Gauss' Law Applicable to Dynamic Charges and All Surfaces?

Click For Summary
Gauss' law is traditionally considered valid only in electrostatic situations, as noted in various electromagnetic texts, including Feynman and Griffiths. However, some findings suggest that Gauss' law may hold for all source charge motions, including relativistically oscillating charges, across different flux integration surfaces. The discussion highlights that while Gauss' law remains applicable in dynamics, it often requires the use of other Maxwell's equations due to the loss of symmetry in moving charges. Participants debated the implications of electric field behavior in dynamic scenarios, emphasizing that Gauss' law is still relevant but may not be sufficient alone to determine the electric field. Ultimately, there is a consensus that Gauss' law is universally applicable, though its utility may vary depending on the context.
  • #31
The issue is that textbooks (e.g. Griffiths: Introduction to electrodynamics) say that divergence of magnetization at the end of a magnet is infinite.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
htg said:
The issue is that textbooks (e.g. Griffiths: Introduction to electrodynamics) say that divergence of magnetization at the end of a magnet is infinite.

Where in Griffiths does it say this?
 
  • #33
Third edition, page 276:

Griffiths said:
since M and H are [in linear media] proportional to B, does it not follow that their divergence, like B's must always vanish? Unfortunately, it does not: at the boundary between two materials of different permeability the divergence of M can actually be infinite. For instance, at the end of a cylinder of linear paramagnetic material, M is zero on one side but not on the other.

\nabla \cdot \vec M and \nabla \cdot \vec H being infinite simply reflects the idealization of the boundary as being perfectly "sharp," with M and H changing "instantaneously" as you cross the boundary.
 
  • #34
jtbell said:
Third edition, page 276:



\nabla \cdot \vec M and \nabla \cdot \vec H being infinite simply reflects the idealization of the boundary as being perfectly "sharp," with M and H changing "instantaneously" as you cross the boundary.

Yeah, the dirac delta that results in the divergence due to an discountinuous boundary condiion. But that is still ok for the reasons that you, jtbell, specified earlier. Guass' Law makes constraints on the B field, not the H and M so the fact that these quantities are not always divergence free is not in contradiction with the law.
 
  • #35
At the end of section 6.4.1 (susceptibility and permeability) - at least in my Polish translation.
 
  • #36
jtbell said:
Third edition, page 276:



\nabla \cdot \vec M and \nabla \cdot \vec H being infinite simply reflects the idealization of the boundary as being perfectly "sharp," with M and H changing "instantaneously" as you cross the boundary.

It does not make much sense to pretend that we think matter is continuous, especially because here it leads to completely false conclusions.
 
  • #37
Gauss's law is verified experimentally for static charges, how is it verified for dynamic charges ?
 

Similar threads

I Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
I Gauss' law and an object with nonuniform charge distribution
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
I How Gauss’ Law is applied to cylinders
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
B Determining whether the non-integral form of Gauss' law applies
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Proving Gauss' Law using a Cubical Surface
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
I Why Do We Consider External Electric Fields in Gauss' Law Calculations?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
I Gauss' theorem and inverse square law
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
I Gauss' Law applicability on any closed surface
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Conditions for applying Gauss' Law
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Use of imaginary charge vs Gauss' law
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K