Is my attempt to derive Gauss' law correct?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an attempt to derive Gauss's law from the divergence of the electric field, focusing on both the differential and integral forms of the law. Participants explore various methods and assumptions related to the derivation, including the use of Coulomb's law and the divergence theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation of Gauss's law, concluding with the differential form, ##\nabla\cdot\textbf{E}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\rho##, but questions arise regarding the use of infinitesimals and the validity of certain expressions.
  • Another participant suggests that the derivation is not general since it assumes the electric field of a point charge, proposing that a more general form for the electric field could be used instead.
  • A different participant mentions the solid angles method as a preferred approach, noting that it leads to the integral form of Gauss's law.
  • There is a suggestion to consider the use of delta functions in the derivation, indicating a potential complexity in the mathematical treatment of the divergence.
  • One participant acknowledges their lack of knowledge regarding delta functions but expresses gratitude for the insights shared in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of the derivation method used, with some supporting the approach while others question its generality. There is no consensus on the best starting point for the derivation or the necessity of using delta functions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the derivation, such as the assumption of a point charge and the potential misapplication of infinitesimals. The discussion also touches on the relationship between the integral and differential forms of Gauss's law without resolving the mathematical intricacies involved.

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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
92
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
894
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K