Schwartz's Derivation of Electric Field in Conducting Medium

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on Melvin Schwartz's derivation of the electric field within a conducting medium as presented in "Principles of Electrodynamics." The user, sloneranger, initially struggles with the appearance of the term 4πσikEx(z) in the second derivative of the electric field, which seems to emerge unexpectedly. Upon further analysis, sloneranger realizes that the oversight was in neglecting the product rule when differentiating the integrals involved in Ex(z). This crucial step clarifies the necessity of the term in the second derivative, highlighting the importance of careful application of calculus in electrodynamics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Maxwell's Equations
  • Familiarity with calculus, specifically differentiation and the product rule
  • Knowledge of electric fields in conducting media
  • Experience with integral calculus and its applications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the product rule in calculus
  • Review Maxwell's Equations and their implications in electrodynamics
  • Explore derivations of electric fields in conducting media from various physics texts
  • Investigate the role of boundary conditions in electric field calculations
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and researchers focusing on electrodynamics, particularly those interested in the mathematical derivations of electric fields in conducting materials.

sloneranger
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I have a question regarding page 241 of “Principles of Electrodynamics” by Melvin Schwartz. He is deriving the electric field inside a conducting medium as a function of position z; by summing the incident field, contributions from slices of material to the left of z, and from slices to the right of z. I follow what he is doing (I think) up through calculating the first derivative of Ez. When taking the derivative of dEx/dz, he adds a term at the end of his expression for the second derivative that I don’t understand. The term is 4πσikEx(z) and it seems to come out of the blue (to me). Using the same math to get the second derivative as was used to calculate the first derivative, does not result in this term appearing. Please help me find what I am missing here; be it math and/or physics.
I have tried finding a similar derivation in other books without success. Later on the same page, Mr. Schwartz states that his derivation could be done much more rapidly by starting with Maxwell’s Equations and he then shows how this is done. His reason for the preceding derivation is to not, “lose the beautiful insight into the origin of the fields in terms of flowing currents.” Based on this and similar derivations from Maxwell’s Equations in other books, it seems that the term I don’t understand is real and necessary. I just don’t understand how he went from his expression for the first derivative to his results for the second derivative.
I would post the 2 equations, but I don’t know a good way to include the integral and exponential terms in this posting. If someone knows of a text that uses a similar approach to Schwartz’s, that may be all I need.
Thanks for your help!
sloneranger
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Good news! I found that my error was in ignoring the derivative of the integrals appearing in Ex(z), and therefore not using the product rule when taking the first derivative with respect to z. Note that z is one of the limits of integration. The “new” terms arising from the product rule cancel each other in the first derivative, so it appears that they are not needed. Oops. Due to a sign change that appears in the 1st derivative, the similar terms do not cancel when taking the second derivative.
sloneranger
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
951
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K