I Query on Electromagnetic Theory (Dielectric Boundary Conditions)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of dielectric boundary conditions in electromagnetic theory, specifically regarding an interface between two dielectric media with different permittivities. The initial query highlights the lack of information about the interface orientation and propagation direction, which complicates the application of boundary conditions. Participants clarify that even without external charges, the presence of different dielectrics results in a surface charge at the boundary, affecting the displacement field D. The jump condition across the interface is emphasized, indicating that the normal component of D is continuous, leading to a discontinuity in the electric field E. Overall, the conversation underscores the importance of understanding the dielectric properties and their implications on electric fields at boundaries.
warhammer
Messages
164
Reaction score
33
TL;DR Summary
I have a query regarding a question from Electromagnetic Theory. I wish to confirm something from the same, hence have not posted about it on the Homework Help Section. Highlighting the issue below:
The given question from Electromagnetic Theory (which is based on Dielectric Boundary Conditions) is as follows:

Interface b/w two dielectric medium has a surface charge density (suppose xyz C / (m ^ 2) ). Using boundary condition find field in 1 (relative permittivity =xyz) if field in 2 (relative permitivitty = xyz) is given as: ## a \hat x + b \hat y + c \hat z## V/mNow my query is isn't this question incomplete? How are we supposed to find field in 1 if the interface, propagation vector or incidence plane is not given, because how else would we be able to apply Boundary Conditions?!

This is something am unable to gauge. Without any other information I'm at a loss how & which components I can classify as normal and tangential. Request someone to please guide if my understanding here is correct, and also advise on the "why" if it is incorrect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Andy Resnick said:
I'm not sure if I fully understand your question (also, is this a homework problem?), but when there is a surface charge, the displacement field D undergoes a 'jump condition' across the interface:

https://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter5/5.3.html
Thank you for your response. No this is not a homework problem.

I do know about the jump condition due to the presence of surface charge. I will reiterate the doubt I'm facing. In the question, no extra information such as plane of incidence, interface is along which plane, propagation is along which direction etc. is NOT revealed. So we cannot apply Boundary Conditions right, since we are at a loss to denote which component is tangential and which is normal (again, because interface is along which plane is just not given).
 
I think the problem is that you have two dielectrics with different permittivities ##\epsilon_1## and ##\epsilon_2## without free surface charges on their boundary surface.

You must note that in the usual formulation of the dielectric ##\rho## is the charge distribution of the "external" charges, i.e., all charges that you put in addition to the "bound" charges making up the dielectric. That's why you introduce the "displacement field", ##\vec{D}##, as an auxilliary field, fulfilling
$$\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{D}=\rho.$$
Restricting ourselves to the case of electrostatics, the electric field then fulfills
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}=0$$
and there is the "constitutive equation"
$$\vec{D}=\epsilon \vec{E}.$$
In general ##\epsilon## is a function of position, because it describes a property of the dielectric material, namely how it's polarized. It's simple to understand when thinking about the microscopic structure of the dielectric: It consists of atoms, which are such that all the electrons stay quite strongly bound to the atomic nuclei, i.e., there are no electrons which are quasi free to move within the medium as, e.g., in metals, where you have "conduction electrons" providing a good electric conductivity.

So all that happens to a dielectric when you bring in additional "external" charges is that the corresponding electric field separates the bound electrons a bit from their equilibrium positions such that the medium then consists of a lot of little dipoles, described microscopically as a polarization (i.e., the dipole moment density due to the induced dipoles).

Now even if there are no external charges, if you have two different dielectrics there is a surface charge along the boundary of these dielectrics. This is easily seen as follows. The external surface-charge density is 0 in this case, i.e., the normal component of ##\vec{D}## is continuous across the surface, i.e., making ##\vec{n}## the surface-normal-unit vector pointing from medium 2 into medium 1 you have
$$\vec{n} \cdot [\vec{D}(\vec{x}_1)-\vec{D}(\vec{x}_2)]=0,$$
where ##\vec{x}_1## is a point on the surface reached as a limit taken within medium 1 and ##\vec{x}_2## is the same point on the surface reached as a limit taken within medium 2. But this implies a jump in the electric field, because it means
$$\vec{n} \cdot [\epsilon_1 \vec{E}(\vec{x}_1) - \epsilon_2 \vec{E}(\vec{x}_2)]=0. \qquad (*)$$
Now the total surface charge (i.e., the surface charge due to the presence of the dieelectric media) is
$$\sigma_{\text{pol}}=\frac{1}{\epsilon_0} \vec{n} \cdot [\vec{E}(\vec{x}_1)-\vec{E}(\vec{x}_2)]=\frac{1}{\epsilon_0} \vec{n} \cdot \vec{E}(\vec{x}_1) (1-\epsilon_1/\epsilon_2).$$
In the last step I've used (*).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top