Mean value theorem in elelctrostatics

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the mean value theorem in electrostatics, particularly focusing on the electrostatic potential in charge-free space. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the implications of their derivation, which suggests that the potential at a point is independent of the surface shape and location.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the electrostatic potential using Green's function and Neumann boundary conditions, leading to a result that seems to contradict the expected spherical symmetry. Other participants inquire about the specifics of the derivation and suggest reviewing calculations to identify potential errors.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on the original poster's derivation and encouraging them to share their calculations for further examination. There is an indication of differing interpretations regarding the implications of the theorem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of specific details in the original poster's derivation, which may be crucial for understanding the results. The mention of Neumann boundary conditions suggests that certain assumptions about the problem setup are being questioned.

hyperspace
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The mean value theorem in electrostatics states that for charge free space the value of the electrostatic potential at any point is equal to the average of the potential over the surface of any sphere centered at that point.
In its derivation I'm getting a kind of strange result that is not satisfactory. What I am getting is that the potential at required point is independent of the type of surface taken (spherical or not) and that it may not be the center as well.
It would be better if you use Green's function to do this.

TIA
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So what are you asking exactly? (Also if you want help with your derivation, it'd be nice to see it ;-)
 
Ok, so the result I'm getting is V(x)=<V>s, where s represents the surface, of any kind actually. So there's no reference to spherical shape also it doesn't follow that x has to be the center of the sphere if s is at all a sphere. I got this using the Green's function and Neumann boundary conditions
 
hyperspace said:
Ok, so the result I'm getting is V(x)=<V>s, where s represents the surface, of any kind actually. So there's no reference to spherical shape also it doesn't follow that x has to be the center of the sphere if s is at all a sphere. I got this using the Green's function and Neumann boundary conditions

That result doesn't look right...if you post your calculations for it, we can tell you wjere you are going wrong.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K