Perturbation of a uniform electrostatic field by a dielectric cube

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analytical calculation of the perturbation of a uniform electrostatic field by a dielectric cube, specifically focusing on the simplest case where the field is parallel to one of the cube's sides. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and references related to this problem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the existence of an analytical solution for a dielectric cube, noting that solutions are available for dielectric spheres.
  • Another participant suggests that the problem is complex due to the absence of Legendre polynomials and proposes using a model of aligned dipoles to approach the solution.
  • Some participants propose using eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator in Cartesian coordinates, while others argue that the variables do not separate nicely in this coordinate system.
  • A participant references Smythe's "Static and Dynamic Electricity" as a potential resource for complex electrostatic problems.
  • There is a discussion about the boundary conditions imposed by the dielectric cube, with some expressing that these conditions complicate the solution significantly compared to problems with spherical or cylindrical symmetry.
  • One participant presents a general solution for the Laplace equation in Cartesian coordinates but expresses uncertainty about how boundary conditions would simplify the electric potential equation.
  • A later reply dismisses previous suggestions, stating that the Cartesian form of Laplace cannot solve the problem and that Green's theorem should be used instead.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the appropriate mathematical approaches to solve the problem, with no consensus on a single method or solution. Some participants support the use of Cartesian coordinates, while others argue for alternative methods, indicating an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the complexity of boundary conditions for the dielectric cube and the potential inapplicability of certain mathematical methods to this specific problem.

Apteronotus
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Is there any way to analytically calculate the perturbation of a uniform electrostatic field by a dielectric cube.
I know a solution exists for dielectric spheres but I haven't been able to come across the solution, when dealing with a cube.

Ohh.. and I'm assuming the simplest case, where the field is parallel to the normal of one of the cube's sides.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's going to be a mess, because you won't have Legendre polynomials in your solution. It's equivalent to solving the electric field from a cube-shaped dipole, and I would attack that by starting with the electric field from a small dipole of length a, and making a cube of length L out of many aligned dipoles, and taking the limit as a/L -> 0.
 
Instead of spherical harmonics, I'd use the eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator from the separation ansatz in Cartesian coordinates with the appropriate boundary conditions for the dielectric.
 
But the variables aren't going to separate nicely in Cartesian space.
 
Check Smythe's "Static and Dynamic Electricity". I've found the answer to many complex situations there.
 
Of course, the Laplacian separates in Cartesian coordinates. For the Laplace Equation,

[tex]\Delta \Phi=0.[/tex]

you make the ansatz [itex]\Phi(\vec{x})=X(x) Y(y) Z(z)[/itex]. Then in the usual way, you can show that

[tex]\frac{X''(x)}{X(x)}=-k_1^2, \quad \frac{Y''(y)}{Y(y)}=-k_2^2, \quad \frac{Z''(z)}{Z(z)}=k_1^2+k_2^2[/tex]

Then you get the set of solutions

[tex]\Phi_{k_1,k_2,\pm}(\vec{x})=\exp \left (\mathrm{i} k_1 x+\mathrm{i} k_2 y \pm \sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2} z \right )[/tex].

A general harmonic function can be built out of these also in the usual way. Of course, for the present problem, you have to find the restriction due to the boundary conditions imposed by the presence of the dielectric cube first and then you can linearly superpose the remaining set of functions to find the solution for your situation.
 
Last edited:
vanhees71 said:
Of course, for the present problem, you have to find the restriction due to the boundary conditions imposed by the presence of the dielectric cube

But that's the point - that's the part that doesn't end up looking so nice. The boundary conditions are ugly, because they are all finite. With spherical or cylindrical symmetry things are much cleaner.
 
Following the description above and solving [itex]\frac{X''}{X}=-k_1^2[/itex], I find
[itex]X(x)=A_1e^{k_1 ix}+A_2e^{-k_1 ix}[/itex]
similarly
[itex]Y(y)=B_1e^{k_2 iy}+B_2e^{-k_2 iy}[/itex] and
[itex]Z(z)=C_1e^{k_3 z}+C_2e^{-k_3 z}[/itex], as general solutions.

So,

[itex]\Phi(\vec{x})=<br /> \left[(A_1+A_2)\cos k_1x+i(A_1-A_2)\sin k_1x\right]\cdot<br /> \left[(B_1+B_2)\cos k_2x+i(B_1-B_2)\sin k_2x\right]\cdot<br /> \left[C_1e^{k_3 z}+C_2e^{-k_3 z}\right][/itex]
rather than what is stated above by vanhees71.

Also for the first boundary condition I have found

[itex]\Phi(\vec{x})\rightarrow -E_0z[/itex] as any of [itex]x,y \mbox{ or } z \rightarrow \pm \infty[/itex]
which simply states that as we move far enough away from the cube, the potential approaches that which would exist without the cube present.

But I'm not sure how this BC would simplify the electric potential equation.
 
Gordianus, thank you for the reference. I just went through Smyth and unfortunately there was nothing on the subject.

Can you think of any other references which may be useful?
 
  • #10
For any unfortunate sole that may come across this post hoping for a hint as to how to approach this problem, I would ignore the above posts.

The problem can not be solved using the Cartesian form of Laplace. The solution is attained using Green's theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
968
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K