Is the Electric Field Unique with Given Charge Density and Boundary Conditions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Griffiths
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] Griffiths Problem 3.4

Homework Statement


Prove that the field is uniquelly determined when the charge density rho is given and either V or the normal derivative \frac{\partial{V}}{\partial{n}} is specified on each boundary surface. Do not assume the boundaries are conductors, or that V is constant over any given surface.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


If you know V on the surface, this is the Corollary to the First Uniqueness Theorem. I don't see how knowing the normal derivative, \frac{\partial{V}}{\partial{n}}= \nabla{V}\cdot \hat{n}, helps at all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My guess: probably one of those Stoke's theorems (curl, divergence, gradient) will simplify things.
 
The divergence theorem and Poisson's equation tell us that \int_{S} \nabla V \cdot \hat{n} da = \int_{V}\nabla ^2V d\tau = \int_{V}\rho/\epsilon_0 d\tau. We know rho, so we didn't even need the normal derivative to get that integral. Thus, I don't see how the curl, divergence, gradient theorems will help.
 
anyone?
 
Never mind. I got it.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top