What are the Boundary Conditions for Dielectric Interfaces?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around boundary conditions for dielectric interfaces, specifically focusing on the electric displacement field (D) across two infinite dielectrics with a free surface charge density. The original poster seeks to determine the actual values of D(1) and D(2) rather than just their difference.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reason that D should be the same on both sides of the boundary, suggesting D=s/2, but expresses uncertainty about proving this. Other participants question the clarity of the original question and the terminology used. One participant clarifies that while D may be the same, the electric field (E) will differ due to the permittivity of the materials involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring the relationship between D and E in the context of dielectric materials. Some guidance has been offered regarding the definition of D and its implications for the boundary conditions, but no consensus has been reached on the specifics of proving the values of D(1) and D(2).

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating potential misunderstandings about terminology and the implications of symmetry in the problem setup. The original poster's question reflects a desire for clarity on the behavior of D across the dielectric boundary under specified conditions.

plmokn2
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Say I have a boundary between two dielectrics then it's easy to show using a gaussian pillarbox that:
D(1)-D(2)=free surface charge density=s
where D(1) is the component of the first medium normal to the surface.
But suppose that there's nothing else apart from two infinite dielectrics with a constant free charge density between then, how would I work out what the actual values of D(1) and D(2) are rather than just the difference?

The Attempt at a Solution


It seems reasonable that the D field should be the same on both sides so that D=s/2 but I'm not sure how I'd prove this?

Any help appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm having a hard time interpreting what you are asking. Could you draw it?
 
I think my question was badly worded/ I've probably misused some terminology.

I suppose my actual qustion is:
Its obvious from the symmetry that for an uncharged nonconducting non-dielectric that if you put a surface charge density s on it the field above is the same magnitude as the field below: D=s/2.

But suppose that the material is a dielectric then I'm not sure how you prove what the D field is above the surface (in air) and below the surface (in the dielectric) (under the same condition of the dielectric being infinite with surface charge s and no other free charge anywhere)

Hope this is a bit clearer, please say if it isn't.
 
Oh, well D is going to be the same for both air and the dielectric, but E will be different because E is D/(epsilon) which will change between the two (epsilon_0 for air and dielectric epsilon in the dielectric). Is this what you are asking about?
 
That's it.

Its probably really obvious but how do you know that D has to be the same on both sides of the boundary?
Thanks
 
It comes from the way D is defined. After its whole redefinition then you just get a Gauss's Law for materials which goes as

[tex]\iint \mathbf{D} \cdot d\mathbf{a} = \sigma_f[/tex]

and that means that the only thing that you care about is the free charge, which will be the same on both sides.
 
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K