Continuity equation conservation in a region S and local conservation

AI Thread Summary
The equations presented illustrate two forms of conservation for a quantity q: the integral form, which represents total conservation within a boundary S, and the differential form, which describes local conservation at any point in space. The integral equation, dq/dt = -∫ J · dS, calculates the total quantity flowing in or out of a region, while the differential equation, ∂q/∂t = -∇ · J, focuses on the density of the quantity at a specific point. The divergence measures the net flow of q, linking both forms through the divergence theorem. Despite their different representations, both equations convey the same principle of conservation. Thus, they are fundamentally equivalent in their physical interpretations.
lys04
Messages
144
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
What’s the differences between these two versions of the continuity equation? ##\frac{dq}{dt} =-\iint_S (\vec{J}. d\vec{S})## and ## \frac{\partial q}{\partial t} =-\nabla . \vec{J}##?
Relevant Equations
$$ \frac{dq}{dt}=-\iint_S (\vec{J}. d\vec{S})$$ $$ \frac{\partial q}{\partial t} =-\nabla . \vec{J}$$
Does ##\frac{dq}{dt}=-\iint_S \vec{J}.d\vec{S} ## correspond to conservation of some quantity q in a region with boundary S whereas ##\frac{\partial q}{\partial t} = - \nabla . \vec{J}## means that for any point in space the quantity q is conserved? Since the divergence measures how much of q is flowing out or in at any point.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The "q"s in your two equations mean different things. In the differential form, ##\partial q / \partial t = -\nabla \cdot J##, the ##q## is the density of the quantity (i.e. dimensions of quantity / length^3). In the integral form, ##dQ/dt = -\int J \cdot dS##, the ##Q## is the total amount of quantity inside the region with boundary S. The link between them is the divergence theorem.
 
Oh ok, but is there a difference in the physical interpretations of the two?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top