Proving that two integrals of potential energy are equal

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the equivalence of two integrals representing potential energy in the context of electrostatics. Participants explore the mathematical relationships and derivations involved in showing that the energy stored in an electric field can be expressed in two different forms.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes starting with the equation ##\nabla \cdot (\phi \nabla\phi) =(\nabla \phi)^2 + \phi \nabla^2 \phi## to derive the equivalence of the two integrals.
  • Another participant questions a sign error in the derivation, noting that the integral should be positive rather than negative.
  • A later reply corrects the sign error in Poisson's equation, stating it should be ##\nabla^2 \phi = -4\pi\rho##, which affects the calculations.
  • One participant introduces the concept of total energy of the electric field and discusses the assumption of a finite charge distribution and stationary states.
  • Another participant elaborates on the integration process using Gauss's Law and the divergence theorem, leading to the conclusion that the surface integral vanishes as the radius approaches infinity.
  • Questions are raised about the conditions under which the equivalence of the integrals holds, specifically regarding the size of the surface used in the integration.
  • A participant explains their notation for integrals, emphasizing clarity in indicating the variables of integration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of certain steps in the derivation, particularly regarding sign conventions and the implications of the surface integral. The discussion remains unresolved as participants explore various aspects of the proof without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential assumptions about the behavior of the electric field at infinity and the dependence on the specific charge distribution. The discussion also highlights unresolved mathematical steps in the derivation process.

Buffu
Messages
851
Reaction score
147
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
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
4K