Poisson's equation in 2 dimensions

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Poisson's equation in a two-dimensional space, particularly in relation to the behavior of electric potential and field due to a singular charge. Participants explore how the absence of a third dimension alters the expected results compared to three-dimensional scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the differences in the application of Gauss's law between two and three dimensions, questioning the nature of the electric field and potential. There is a focus on the mathematical relationships and implications of integrating forces and potentials in different dimensional contexts.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering insights into the mathematical framework and questioning the assumptions made regarding boundary conditions in their simulations. Some guidance has been provided regarding the nature of the potential and the implications of singularities in the context of Poisson's equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of applying boundary conditions in two dimensions, particularly when approximating infinity, and consider alternative approaches such as Neumann boundary conditions. There is an acknowledgment of the complexities introduced by dimensionality in the modeling process.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


If we lived in a world with 2 spatial dimensions, would the solution to Poisson's equation for a singular charge be the same i.e. would it be 1/r radial dependence?
I am doing a computer simulation and if I take out the third dimension, the results are manifestly different.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
It would be manifestly different. Look at Gauss's law for flux integral vs source charge. In two dimensions, it's a log.
 
Sorry. Could you explain that more.

In 3 dimensions, Gauss's law says that the flux of E through a surface around a charge q is given by

\int _{S} \vec{E} \cdot d\vec{a} = \frac{q}{\epsilon_0}

In two dimensions, it is just over a closed path instead of circle and you replace the da by a d(normal vector to the curve) or something.

What are you saying is a log in two dimensions?
 
Last edited:
The 1/r dependence in 3d is for the potential U. In your 2d example you can conclude that (take a circle for the curve) E*length of curve is proportional to charge. So E is proportional to 1/r. But E=-dU/dr. So U must be like log(r).
 
Last edited:
But then the potential is infinity at infinity? I think maybe Gauss's law would be different in 2 dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Yes. If you integrate a 1/r force from something to infinity, it diverges. Try one dimension as well. The force is a constant independent of distance. Potential is a linear function of r. Also infinite at infinity. Remind you of anything?
 
Dick said:
Yes. If you integrate a 1/r force from something to infinity, it diverges. Try one dimension as well. The force is a constant independent of distance. Potential is a linear function of r. Also infinite at infinity. Remind you of anything?

Not really.

But try inserting ln( sqrt(x^2 +y^2)) into the two dimensional poisson equation i.e. the gradient only has two components. I get 1/sqrt(x^2 + y^2) = rho/epsilon_0, which is not a solution.

But I just tried the 3 dimensional solution U = 1/sqrt(x^2 +y^2 +z^2) and I get 0 = rho/epsilon_0 .

So, what could be wrong? Now I am really confused. I am using a point charge at 0, so the RHS of Poisson's equation should be a delta function?
 
You should get 0 in both cases. Your source is only at the origin so the laplacian is correctly giving you the charge density=0, at the origin it's singular. To test that your solution is a delta function you have to integrate it against a test function and use integration by parts.
 
Aha, I see now.

In my model, I was putting the charge in a square with a boundary condition that the sides of the square have a potential of 0. In 3 dimensions it made sense to make the sides of the box around the charge zero as an approximation of infinity, but in 2 dimensions that breaks down apparently. I am not really sure how you would make an accurate numerical model of the potential in two dimensions then since I can't have a boundary condition of infinity.

Maybe I need to use Neumann boundary conditions or something.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K