Proving Electric Flux Density: eE Determination

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the relationship D = eE, where D is the electric displacement field and E is the electric field. Participants clarify that this equation is primarily a definition rather than a theorem requiring proof. The derivation involves Maxwell's equations and the relationship between electric displacement, electric field, and polarization in materials. For linear and isotropic materials, the equation can be expressed as D = εE, where ε is the permittivity of the material. The conversation also touches on minor typographical corrections in the equations presented.
mym786
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
How to prove that D = eE.

Use a general proof. I know how to prove it assuming a point charge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mym786 said:
How to prove that D = eE.

Use a general proof. I know how to prove it assuming a point charge.
I'm not sure what you mean by "prove". That is simply a definition: D=eE because we say so.
 
How did we get this formula ?
 
mym786 said:
How did we get this formula ?
As I said in my previous post, by definition. There really is nothing to prove. The electric displacement field is simply defined that way.
 
Check out "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths 3rd edition, page 175.

\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = \rho_v + \nabla \cdot \vec P

\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E + \nabla \cdot \vec P = \rho_{f} \;\Rightarrow \; \nabla \cdot (\epsilon_0 \vec E + \vec P) = \rho_{f}

So we define:

\vec D = \epsilon_0 \vec E + \vec P \;\Rightarrow \; \nabla \cdot \vec D = \rho_{f}

For linear and isotropic material:

\vec P= \epsilon_0 \chi_e \vec E \;\Rightarrow \; \vec D = \epsilon_0(1+ \chi_e) \vec E

We define:

\epsilon_r = 1+ \chi_e \;\hbox { and } \epsilon = \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r \;\Rightarrow \vec D = \epsilon \vec E
 
Last edited:
Hi yungman

I think you have a typo; your first line should go

\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = - \nabla \cdot \vec P + \rho_{f}
 
dgOnPhys said:
Hi yungman

I think you have a typo; your first line should go

\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = - \nabla \cdot \vec P + \rho_{f}

Yes, sorry!
 
Back
Top