Proving that two integrals of potential energy are equal

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equivalence of two integrals representing potential energy: ##U = \frac{1}{8\pi}\int \vec{E} \cdot \vec{E} \, dV## and ##U = \frac{1}{2} \int \phi \rho \, dV##. The proof involves applying the divergence theorem and Poisson's equation, leading to the conclusion that the first integral evaluates to zero under certain conditions. The participants clarify the use of Gauss's Law and the behavior of electric fields at infinity, confirming that the equivalence holds when the surface integral vanishes as the radius approaches infinity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, particularly divergence and gradient operations.
  • Familiarity with Maxwell's Equations, specifically Gauss's Law.
  • Knowledge of Poisson's equation and its implications in electrostatics.
  • Basic concepts of potential energy in electric fields.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the divergence theorem in electrostatics.
  • Explore the derivation and implications of Poisson's equation in different contexts.
  • Learn about the behavior of electric fields at infinity and its significance in potential energy calculations.
  • Investigate the relationship between electric field strength and charge distribution in various geometries.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electromagnetism who seek to deepen their understanding of potential energy in electric fields and the mathematical proofs behind them.

Buffu
Messages
849
Reaction score
146
I want to prove ##\displaystyle U = {1\over 8\pi}\int \vec E \cdot \vec E dV## and ##\displaystyle U = \frac12 \int \phi \rho dV## are equal.

I started with ##\nabla \cdot (\phi \nabla\phi) =(\nabla \phi)^2 + \phi \nabla^2 \phi##'

Then

##\displaystyle {1\over 8\pi}\int \vec E \cdot \vec E dV = {1\over 8\pi}\int \nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \phi dV = {1\over 8\pi}\int \nabla \cdot (\phi \nabla\phi) - \phi \nabla^2 \phi dV = {1\over 8\pi}\int \nabla \cdot (\phi \nabla\phi) dV - {1\over 8\pi}\int \phi \nabla^2 \phi dV ##

By poisson's equation, ##\nabla^2 \phi = 4\pi \rho##

So, ##\displaystyle {1\over 2}\int \rho \phi dV##

So I guess I need to prove ##\displaystyle {1\over 8\pi}\int \nabla \cdot (\phi \nabla\phi) dV## is zero

Using divergence theorem,

## \displaystyle {1\over 8\pi}\int \nabla \cdot (\phi \nabla\phi) dV = {1\over 8\pi}\int (\phi \nabla \phi)\cdot d\vec a##

Now I don't have any clue what to do, I guess I need to use ##-\nabla \phi = \vec E## but I don't know how.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Haven't you flipped a sign?
You have ##-\displaystyle {1\over 2}\int \rho \phi dV##, but you want ##+\displaystyle {1\over 2}\int \rho \phi dV##
 
haruspex said:
Haven't you flipped a sign?
You have ##-\displaystyle {1\over 2}\int \rho \phi dV##, but you want ##+\displaystyle {1\over 2}\int \rho \phi dV##

I made a typo in poisson's equation, it is ##\nabla^2 \phi = -4\pi\rho## so they got cancelled.
 
First note that you want to find the total energy of the electric field,
$$U=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \frac{\vec{E}^2}{8 \pi}.$$
It's safe to assume that you have a your charge distribution in a finite volume (it's most realistic ;-)). Then from the result I also guess you deal with stationary states, i.e., time-independent fields, where ##\vec{E}## has a potential, i.e.,
$$\vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla} \phi.$$
Then you can use
$$\vec{E}^2=-\vec{E} \cdot \vec{\nabla} \phi = - E_j \partial_j \phi=-[\partial_j (E_j \phi)-\phi \partial_{j} E_j]=-\vec{\nabla} \cdot (\phi \vec{E})+\phi \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}.$$
For the 2nd term you use Gauss's Law (which is one of Maxwell's Equations)
$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=4 \pi \rho.$$
Then we get
$$\vec{E}^2=-\vec{\nabla} \cdot(\phi \vec{E})+4 \pi \phi \rho.$$
Now we have to integrate that. Let's start with the first term. Because it's a divergence, we can use Gauss's Integral Theorem. So let's assume some large volume ##V## with a boundary surface ##\partial V##. Then we get
$$\int_V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \vec{\nabla} \cdot (\phi \vec{E})=\int_{\partial V} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{f} \cdot (\phi \vec{E}).$$
Now take ##V## to be a sphere of radius ##R## around the origin. Since our charge distribution is assumed to occupy only some finite volume, and we can also assume that this is located around the origin of our coordinate system, we know that ##\phi \sim 1/r## and ##\vec{E} \sim 1/r^2## for large ##r##. This implies that the surface integral goes like ##1/R##. So in the limit ##R \rightarrow \infty## this surface contribution vanishes, and we are left with the 2nd part. So finally we indeed get
$$U=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \frac{1}{2} \rho \phi.$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buffu
vanhees71 said:
Now take ##V## to be a sphere of radius ##R## around the origin. Since our charge distribution is assumed to occupy only some finite volume, and we can also assume that this is located around the origin of our coordinate system, we know that ##\phi \sim 1/r## and ##\vec{E} \sim 1/r^2## for large ##r##. This implies that the surface integral goes like ##1/R##. So in the limit ##R \rightarrow \infty## this surface contribution vanishes, and we are left with the 2nd part. So finally we indeed get
$$U=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \frac{1}{2} \rho \phi.$$

Two things,

One, Is the equivalence of these two integrals only when the surface is very large ? I think so because you used ##R \to \infty##.

Second, Why you write ##d (...)## before the actual function ? :)
 
It's the total field energy. So you have to integrate over all space, and thus the surface of the volume is at infinity.

I use the physicists' notation for integrals, where the integral sign together with the ##\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}## acts as an operator on the integrand. I think it's a very clear notation, because you see at once wrt. to which variables you integrate. That's particularly convenient when you have nested integrals.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
838
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
602
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
723
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K