Mistake in "Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory"?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the notation used in the book "Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory" regarding the potential of a dielectric. A specific point of confusion arises from the expression ##\rho_P = -\text{div} P## versus ##-\text{div}' P##. Participants clarify that the book's notation is correct, emphasizing that the differences are merely notational rather than physical. The consensus is that understanding the context of the notation is crucial for grasping the underlying concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, specifically divergence operations.
  • Familiarity with dielectric materials and their properties.
  • Knowledge of electromagnetic theory fundamentals.
  • Ability to interpret mathematical notation in physics contexts.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review vector calculus identities relevant to electromagnetic theory.
  • Study the implications of dielectric polarization in electromagnetic fields.
  • Examine different notations used in physics literature for divergence and other operations.
  • Explore the relationship between coordinate systems and physical quantities in electromagnetism.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism, educators teaching electromagnetic theory, and anyone seeking clarity on mathematical notation in physics contexts.

MatinSAR
Messages
673
Reaction score
204
Homework Statement
I guess there is a problem with this book in chapter 4.
Relevant Equations
Below.
The book wanna show how to find potential of a dielectric.
1705268734962.png

The problem arises when it uses a vector identity.
1705268822382.png

Still there is no problem.

1705268911641.png

My problem is that I cannot understand why ##\rho_P= -div P##? I think it should be ##-div' P##.
The book is wrong?

In next page it uses ##-div'##
1705269070906.png


In some other pages it uses ##div P## and this confuesd me ...
My professor didn't say anything about book being wrong in this chapter and I did not take a photo of class board. So I don't have any trusted source except here ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P is a function of position. Inside the integral, one is integrating in prime coordinates, so P is a function of prime coordinates. The book is correct. It‘s just notation, not physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TSny and MatinSAR
Frabjous said:
P is a function of position. Inside the integral, one is integrating in prime coordinates, so P is a function of prime coordinates. The book is correct. It‘s just notation, not physics.
Now I see what a poor question I've asked. Thanks @Frabjous .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and Frabjous
Not a poor question. A simple and resolved question! 👍
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS and MatinSAR
hutchphd said:
Not a poor question. A simple and resolved question! 👍
Thanks for your kind comment @hutchphd .
 
The question was well stated and the answer was simple. If only this was always true! Consider the time you would have needlessly wasted had you not asked the question. Confusion almost always preceeds (useful) learning.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz and MatinSAR
hutchphd said:
Confusion almost always preceeds (useful) learning.
Any time I've ever succeded in figuring something out it was always preceded by a state of confusion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
928
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
717
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K