Electromagnetism - Boundary conditions for Polarization field at interface

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the electrostatic boundary conditions for a polarization field at the interface of two media with different relative permittivities. The user outlines their approach using a Gaussian surface and Amperian loop, referencing Feynman's lectures for guidance. They derive the relationship between the polarization fields in the two media and establish boundary conditions based on the continuity of the electric field and the displacement field. The user seeks verification of their derivation and questions whether their substitution of the polarization field is appropriate for the problem. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding boundary conditions in electromagnetism and optics.
lmcelroy
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Not actually a homework question, this is a question from a past exam paper (second year EM and optics):

Homework Statement



Use a Gaussian surface and Amperian loop to derive the electrostatic boundary conditions for a polarization field P at an interface between media 1 and 2 with relative permittivities εr1 and εr2.


Homework Equations




D = ε0E + P,

\nabla.P = -ρb

where D is the displacement field, E the electric field and ρb the bound volume charge density.

The Attempt at a Solution



Lack of a solution is the reason for posting?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, after obtaining a copy of Feynman's lectures and referring to Volume 2, Chapter 33-3, I think I have found a solution.

Treating the boundary as a separate region (media 3 with a relative permittivity that begins at εr1 and changes continuously to εr2) then since the P field is different in each region, in region 3 (the boundary) there is a \deltaPx/\deltax where Px is the P field in the x direction. So;

d/dx (Dx) = d/dx ( (ε0Ex) + (P)) ... (partial derivatives with respect to x [can't use latex very well]

D doesn't change in materials so:

-d/dx (Exε0) = d/dx (Px)

Integrating each side with respect to x over region 3 and letting P2 be the polarisation in εr2 region and P1.. :

Px2-Px1 = -ε0(Ex2 - Ex1)


Also there is no B divergence from Maxwell so:
B1 = B2 (for all directions)

Also from Maxwell:

curl(E) = -dB/dt (again partials)

Which gives the following set:

dEz/dy -dEy/dz = -dBx/dt
dEz/dx - dEx/dz = -dBy/dt
dEy/dx - dEx/dy = -dBz/dt

The E field only changes in the direction so only the following is considered:

dEz/dx = -dBy/dt
dEy/dx = -dBz/dt

Now if E were to change the right hand side of the equation would have to be balanced by a change of B with respect to time which does not happen so:

Ez1 = Ez2 and Ey1 = Ey2

So I have the boundary conditions of a dielectric interface. The boundary conditions on P are then just found by substituting P = E(εr-1)ε0:

(1) Px2-Px1 = -ε0(Ex2 - Ex1)
Px2 - Px1 = (-Px2/(εr2-1))+(Px1/(εr1-1))
Px1εr1 / (εr1-1) = Px2εr2 / (εr2-1)

(2) B1 = B2

(3) (P1/(εr1-1))y = (P2/(εr2-1))y

(4) (P1/(εr1-1))z = (P2/(εr2-1))z


Hoping someone can verify this for me. Fairly sure about the derivation of boundary conditions; it is essentially Feynman's derivation modified for two materials (he does it for vacuum to material).

However, not sure if the substitution of P is the right thing to do - does this form constitute an answer to the question or is it asking something else?

Again thanks in advance.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top