Mutual Electrostatic Energy Derivation.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of mutual electrostatic energy for two charged systems, specifically represented by the equation U_{12}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int E_1 \cdot E_2 dV. The participants clarify the use of vector fields E and potential fields φ in the derivation, emphasizing the equation (1)=\nabla(\phi E)=E \cdot \nabla \phi + \phi * \nabla \cdot E. The main question raised is why (1) equals zero in the context of the derivation, indicating a need for deeper understanding of vector calculus in electrostatics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, specifically divergence and gradient operations.
  • Familiarity with electrostatic concepts, including electric fields and potential energy.
  • Knowledge of integral calculus as it applies to field theory.
  • Proficiency in LaTeX for clear mathematical representation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of divergence and gradient in vector calculus.
  • Learn about the physical interpretation of electric fields and potentials in electrostatics.
  • Explore the derivation of energy expressions in electrostatics using integral calculus.
  • Practice writing and formatting equations in LaTeX to avoid common errors.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on electrostatics, as well as educators seeking to clarify the derivation of mutual electrostatic energy in charged systems.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
i don't quite understand the derivation of mutual electrostatic energy of two charged system:
[tex]U_12=\frac{1}{4\pi}\intE_1(dot)E_2dV=-\frac{1}{4\pi}\intE_1(dot)\nebla\phi_2 dV= \frac{1}{4\pi}\int \phi_2(dot)\nebla(dot)E_1=\int \phi_2*\rho_1dV[/tex]
i undersantd that we are using here: [tex](1)=\nebla(\phi<b>E</b>)=<b>E</b>(dot)\nebla\phi+\phi*\nebla(dot)<b>E</b>[/tex]

but why then (1)=0 here?

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your Latex is garbled. Use U_{12} for subsrcipts and \cdot instead of \dot.
There are too m any other misprints to make sense of it.
 
a correction:
[tex]U_{12}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int E_1 \cdot E_2 dV=-\frac{1}{4\pi}\int E_1 \cdot \nabla\phi_2 dV= \frac{1}{4\pi}\int \phi_2 \nabla \cdot E_1 \cdot da= \int \phi_2 * \rho_1 dV[/tex]
[tex](1)=\nabla(\phi E)=E\cdot \nabla \phi+ \phi * \nabla \cdot E[/tex]
where E is a vector field, and phi is a potential field.
i want to understand why in the first equations (the first line) why we get that (1)=0, i hope now the latex is better.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K