Proving Electric Flux Density: eE Determination

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the relationship between electric flux density (D) and electric field (E), specifically the equation D = eE. Participants explore the definition of this relationship and the derivation of the formula, with some questioning the need for a proof.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that D = eE is a definition rather than something that requires proof, suggesting that it is simply accepted as such.
  • Others inquire about the derivation of the formula, indicating a desire for a more general proof beyond specific cases like point charges.
  • A participant references a textbook to provide a mathematical derivation involving the electric displacement field and polarization, presenting equations that relate these concepts.
  • There is a correction regarding a potential typo in the mathematical expressions presented, indicating a focus on accuracy in the technical details.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear divided on whether D = eE requires proof, with some viewing it as a definitional statement and others seeking a derivation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of proving the relationship.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific mathematical expressions and definitions that may depend on the context of linear and isotropic materials, which could affect the understanding of the relationship between D, E, and polarization.

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.

[tex]\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = \rho_v + \nabla \cdot \vec P[/tex]

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

So we define:

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

For linear and isotropic material:

[tex]\vec P= \epsilon_0 \chi_e \vec E \;\Rightarrow \; \vec D = \epsilon_0(1+ \chi_e) \vec E[/tex]

We define:

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

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

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

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

[tex]\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = - \nabla \cdot \vec P + \rho_{f}[/tex]

Yes, sorry!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K