Is my attempt to derive Gauss' law correct?

SothSogi
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Hi there. I am trying to derive Gauss's law from the divergence. I would like to know if it is correct:

The divergence is defined as (I saw this on Fuller & Byron "Mathematics of classical and quantum physics")

##
\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\lim_{\Delta\tau\rightarrow0}\frac{1}{\Delta\tau}\int_\sigma\textbf{E}\cdot d\boldsymbol\sigma
##

Then I made the following

##
\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\lim_{\Delta\tau\rightarrow0}\frac{1}{\Delta\tau}\int_\sigma\textbf{E}\cdot d\boldsymbol\sigma=\frac{1}{d\tau}\int_\sigma\textbf{E}\cdot d\boldsymbol\sigma
##

So then, for a point charge and taking the dot product for a spherical surface element

##
\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\frac{1}{d\tau}\int_\sigma\frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\vert\textbf{r}\vert^2}d\sigma=\frac{1}{d\tau}\frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\vert\textbf{r}\vert^2}\int_\sigma d\sigma
##

##
\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\frac{1}{d\tau}\frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\vert\textbf{r}\vert^2}\left(4\pi r^2\right)=\frac{1}{d\tau}\frac{q}{\varepsilon_0}
##

Now ##
q=\int_V\rho d\tau
##

So

##
\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\frac{1}{d\tau}\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\int_V\rho d\tau=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\int_V\rho\frac{d\tau}{d\tau}
##

So

##
\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\rho
##Thanks for taking the time to read it.
 
Hi,
Thank you so much for putting your equations in Tex form!

There are two forms of Gauss's law (see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law), the integral form and the differential form. From your conclusion, it sounds like you are trying to prove the differential form, ##\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\rho##
It looks like you are supposed to use Coulomb's law.

Your solution looks basically OK, following the correct logic. You use of infinitesimals such as ##\Delta \tau## and ##d\tau## seems a little off. For example, you write ##\int_V\rho\frac{d\tau}{d\tau}##. This expression is malformed. ##\frac{d\tau}{d\tau}## is unity and the integral becomes ##\int_V\rho##, which doesn't make sense.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SothSogi
Hi,
I am not an expert but if you assume that the E field is that of a point charge then how would this be a general derivation? Personally, i like the derivation using solid angles method but it gives the integral form of Gauss law.
 
Yes, Pumpkin, I see what you mean. Do you think the assignment is to derive the differential form starting with the integral form? I mean, we have to start with something. It seems we could also start with a general form for the electric field, as below. Do you think that is the starting point the instructor intended?

##E(x)=\int_V \frac{\rho (x^\prime) (x-x^\prime)}{|x-x^\prime|^3}d^3 x^\prime##
 
I omitted the factor ##\frac{1}{\epsilon_0}##
 
Yes, i think you should use that Expression instead.
 
Does your course include the use of delta functions? If we take the divergence of the integral we will get an expression involving delta functions.
 
PumpkinCougar95 said:
Personally, i like the derivation using solid angles method but it gives the integral form of Gauss law.

Well, I don't know much about electrodynamics but once you have the integral form it's pretty easy to switch to derivate form:

$$\int_S (\mathbf E⋅\mathbf n) dA = \frac Q {\epsilon}$$
$$ \int_S (\mathbf E⋅\mathbf n) dA = \frac 1 {\epsilon} \int_V \rho dV$$

Using the divergence theorem

$$ \int_S (\mathbf E⋅\mathbf n) dA = \int_V ∇ ⋅ \mathbf E dV $$

so

$$\int_V ∇ ⋅ \mathbf E dV = \frac 1 {\epsilon} \int_V \rho dV $$

Since ##\epsilon## is constant the above equality is true only if

$$ ∇ ⋅ \mathbf E = \frac {\rho} {\epsilon} $$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SothSogi
Looks good
 
  • #10
Ok, thank you very much to all! There are some things you mention that I honestly do not know, like for instance the delta functions. But it is now clear where my mistakes were and how to derive it using other methods.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PumpkinCougar95

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
92
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K