Separation of Variables In Electrostatics

AI Thread Summary
Separation of Variables is a common technique in electrostatics, but concerns arise regarding the legitimacy of solutions, particularly when portions of the solution are discarded to avoid division by zero. This raises questions about whether important aspects of the solution are overlooked. Additionally, when using Fourier Series to find constants, the reliance on potential at a single point creates uncertainty about the applicability of that constant across the entire space. While some justification exists for ignoring certain solutions, a deeper mathematical understanding may be necessary to fully grasp these concepts. Clarification on the consistency of constants across space remains a key inquiry.
M-Speezy
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I am curious how legitimate a solution Separation of Variables tends to give. I've been working problems out of Griffith's book on Electromagnetism, and am often uneasy as to the way things are done. I have two specific issues. The first, is that in spherical it is often necessary to remove entire portions of the solution, as you would divide by zero otherwise. This makes perfect sense at surface level, because otherwise the solution wouldn't make any sense. But how do you know that is then the solution, that you haven't left off important parts? The other issue I have is with finding the constants through a Fourier Series. Often, the potential would be given at a specific point, so everything is simplified to be analyzed at JUST that specific point, so that the constant can be found. My question is how do we know that the constant found at that point will apply to all space (that is being considered)? It all 'makes sense', but seems very dubious to me. If anyone would be able to explain some of these ideas, or maybe why I'm perhaps being silly, I would really appreciate it. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I may have answered one of my questions, the one about ignoring portions of solutions. Griffiths discusses the fact that sines or cosines can be used to construct any solution, so it is somehow justifiable. I think to understand it at a deeper level I'd be looking at a lot of math. My other question still stands, if anyone knows anything about it!
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top