Why Does Rho_b Blow Up (Griffiths Pg. 176)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Griffiths
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a concept from Griffiths' text regarding the behavior of bound charge density (\( \rho_b \)) at the surface of a dielectric material. Participants are exploring why \( \rho_b \) is described as "blowing up" at this boundary, particularly in the context of Gauss's law and the definitions of bound charge density and polarization.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to clarify the meaning of \( \rho_b \) and its relationship to surface charge density (\( \sigma_b \)). There are discussions about the implications of a sharp boundary versus a gradual transition in polarization, and how this affects the divergence of polarization and the resulting charge density.

Discussion Status

Some participants are questioning the definitions and assumptions surrounding \( \rho_b \) and \( \sigma_b \), while others are providing insights into the mathematical representation of surface charge distributions. The conversation is exploring multiple interpretations of the problem without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific examples and problems from Griffiths' text that may influence the understanding of the concepts being discussed. The distinction between surface and volume charge distributions is a focal point, with participants noting the potential for confusion in their definitions.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] Griffiths page 176

Homework Statement


Below example 4.4, Griffiths says "We cannot apply Gauss's law precisely at the surface of a dielectric, for rho_b blows up..."

Why does rho_b blow up?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
anyone?
 
That sentence is a bit convoluted, but G is probably referring to bound surface charge density, which corresponds to infinite volume charge density.
If a discussion in GIII confuses you, go back to GI, which has less of that confusing help.
 
Hello ehrenfest,it is an interesting question and I wonder if I myself understood this point while I read this section a year or two ago.

The problem is with the definition of [tex]\rho_b=\ - \ div \ P[/tex] and [tex]\sigma_b=\ P.n[/tex].UNDERSTAND that P is determined by [tex]\sigma_b[/tex] and [tex]\rho_b[/tex]

Note that when we say there is a quantity [tex]\rho_b[/tex] and another quantity [tex]\sigma_b[/tex],we generally do not care if there is any sharp boundary between the charge distributions.I mean we do not say upto 0.005 cm below the surface we would call [tex]\sigma_b[/tex] and below that we would call as [tex]\rho_b[/tex]

As Griffiths gives hint the charge density is expected to be gradually fade out toward the boundary.This makes [tex]\rho_b[/tex] a continuous function and hence P is also continuous.POLARIZATION GRADUALLY TAPERS OFF TO ZERO.This exculdes the existence of [tex]\sigma_b[/tex]

But if there were a sharp boundary like I mentioned, polarization P would be discontinuos across that boundary near (on) the surface and by taking the divergence you will get [tex]\rho_b=\infty[/tex].

I hope the problem is now clear to you.
 
neelakash said:
This exculdes the existence of [tex]\sigma_b[/tex]
I see. So you are saying that a uniformly polarized object of finite size is unphysical.
 
Last edited:
Not quite. What he's referring to is that any surface charge distribution can be written as a volume charge distribution by means of delta functions. For example, the surface charge density of a uniformly charged sphere can be written

[tex]\rho(r, \theta, \phi) = \frac{Q}{4\pi a^2}\delta(r - a)[/tex]

Naturally, this function blows up on the surface itself, just as the charge density (and divergence of E) blows up at a point charge.
 
Not quite. What he's referring to is that any surface charge distribution can be written as a volume charge distribution by means of delta functions.

I meant not exactly this,but like this.Refer to Griffiths problem 1.45 (b).The derivative of a step function is a delta function.Likewise If there is a distinguishable sharp boundary like between core and cover (jacket) of a body,rho_b must blow up.

In reality you might have a uniform polarized object.But do not be too obsessed with the distinction of rho_b and sigma_b---they are the different faces of the SAME distribution and is not different like core and cover (jacket).
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K