Finding the potential by Green's function

In summary, Orodruin thinks that the y coordinate should not be mirrored and that the potentials given on the surface simply determine your boundary conditions. He also thinks that there should be no problem with plugging them into the integrals with the right intervals for each coordinate.
  • #1
MMS
148
4

Homework Statement


An infinite plane at z=0 is divided into two: the right half of it (y>0) is held at potential zero and the left half of it is held at potential \phi_0
.

Over this surface lies a point charge q at (0,y_0,z_0)
.

Use Green's function to calculate the potential at z>0.

The Attempt at a Solution



kJ3Eqy9.png

sIx9hvR.png


I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at my attempt at solution as I'm not sure whether what I've gotten to is right or wrong. Mainly because I also have to calculate other things that require taking the derivative of this expression (surface charge density and force acting on the charge).
Also, I couldn't calculate the integral (Wolfram won't read it for some reason) which makes it even more suspicious. If you plug it into some program and you get an answer, please, let me know.Thanks in advance!

P.S: I've noticed earlier that someone had replied to my older post which has been deleted and I couldn't reply at the time and I can't recall what had been said.
If you read this and want to share again, please do.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi, I have answered before. So here I go again. The terms in eq. (0.2) cancel. I think you have placed wrong the image charge (in the same place as the real charge), it should be located at the point ##(0,-y_0,-z_0)##. You will have plus signes in the denominator for the second term in your green's function.

##\frac{q}{\sqrt{x^2+(y+y')^2+(z+z')^2}}##.

Anyway, this image charge will make the whole z=0 plane to be at potential=0. I never worked electrostatic problems with greens function, so I'm not familiar with this. The thing that is left to be done, is to set the other half plane at the potential ##\phi_0##. I don't know if the surface integral in Greens theorem accounts for that (but I believe that it does). You can check Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" for reference.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Telemachus said:
Hi, I have answered before. So here I go again. The terms in eq. (0.2) cancel. I think you have placed wrong the image charge (in the same place as the real charge), it should be located at the point ##(0,-y_0,-z_0)##. You will have plus signes in the denominator for the second term in your green's function.

##\frac{q}{\sqrt{x^2+(y+y')^2+(z+z')^2}}##

First off thanks for the reply and the care to reply again. I appreciate it.

Second, you are completely right about the location of the image charge location in the z direction (on paper I wrote z+z' but I copied it wrong in lyx). As for the y direction, I don't think it's -y_0.
I think it needs to be the "mirror" charge to the one given from underneath the surface, hence (0,y_0,-z_0).
Don't you think so?
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #4
MMS said:
As for the y direction, I don't think it's -y_0.
You are correct. Putting the image charge in -y_0 would lead to the Green's function not satisfying the correct BCs. This is an easy check. You are mirroring in the z=0 plane.

Telemachus said:
it should be located at the point ##(0,-y_0,-z_0)##. You will have plus signes in the denominator for the second term in your green's function.

##\frac{q}{\sqrt{x^2+(y+y')^2+(z+z')^2}}##.

Anyway, this image charge will make the whole z=0 plane to be at potential=0.

As MMS said, the y coordinate should not be mirrored. Inserting z=0 into both potential of the charge and mirror charge should give the same expression with opposite sign.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #5
Telemachus said:
Anyway, this image charge will make the whole z=0 plane to be at potential=0. I never worked electrostatic problems with greens function, so I'm not familiar with this. The thing that is left to be done, is to set the other half plane at the potential ##\phi_0##. I don't know if the surface integral in Greens theorem accounts for that (but I believe that it does). You can check Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" for reference.
From what I know, the potentials given on the surface simply determine your boundary conditions so I don't think there should be a problem with that. The only affect they'll have is by plugging them into the integrals with the right intervals for each coordinate.
For each problem (very specific ones) you must have some sort of symmetry (spherical/cylindrical/planar) in order to use the method of images and for it to work. Using Green, you have pretty specific patterns for each symmetry and in this case, it is the plane with the two image charges (actually, "unit" charges) for the Green function.
 
  • #6
Orodruin said:
You are correct. Putting the image charge in -y_0 would lead to the Green's function not satisfying the correct BCs. This is an easy check. You are mirroring in the z=0 plane.
Thanks for the reply Orodruin.

Do you see where I could've possibly went wrong?
 
  • #7
Sorry for the mistake, you are right, the correct position for the image charge is ##(0,y_0,-z_0)##. What you did seems ok to me now.
 
  • #8
MMS said:
Do you see where I could've possibly went wrong?
Why do you think you have gone wrong? (Other than copy paste errors...)
 
  • #10
Orodruin said:
Why do you think you have gone wrong? (Other than copy paste errors...)

First, you expect the double improper integral to converge for it to be right. No program was able to give me a concrete answer to this (I don't know if I suck at typing functions or it simply doesn't converge to anything).

Second, after finding the potential, I'm asked to find the surface charge density sigma(x,y).
To do so, I'll have to take the derivative of the potential and equalize it to 4*pi*sigma.
This doesn't seem right to take derivatives of double improper integrals. Not to mention it is also multiplied by z, too.

Therefore, I suspect I'm wrong somewhere..
 
  • #12
Even if there exists a closed form expression for this integral (I have not checked), you should not assume that this will always be the case.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #14
By physical reasoning, your integrals must converge. Without the point charge, it must be between zero and ##\phi_0## everywhere.
 
  • #15
Orodruin said:
By physical reasoning, your integrals must converge. Without the point charge, it must be between zero and ##\phi_0## everywhere.
Yes. I completely agree with you. Yet it isn't working out for me.
Maybe I messed up some signs or something, I'll try again.
 
  • #16
The integral you have written down is also clearly convergent for all z>0.

Switching to polar coordinates you have an integrand that goes as 1/r^3 as r goes to infinity in a two dimensional integral. With the r dr in the integration measure, the boundary term at infinity goes as 1/r.
 
  • Like
Likes MMS and Telemachus
  • #17
The computer isn't good for everything. Try making a change of variables. You have the primitive for the integral. Don't rely on the computer for it.

If you call u=c-y, du=-dy perhaps you can get the desired result.

I don't think its a good idea to perform the integration in polar coordinates, because you have to put one of the limits of integration in the plane y=0. But you can try that too. What is clear from what Orodruin said is that the integral converges.
 
  • Like
Likes MMS
  • #18
What I sais before was just stupid, I think that performing the integration in polar coordinates is actually the smart thing to do.

Ps. I'm not sure. You have radial symmetry around ##y_0##, so I think you will have trouble at y=0 with the limits of integration, but one should try to do it to be sure.
 
  • Like
Likes MMS
  • #19
Well, I can tell you this. I'm not relying on computers anymore. A pen and a pad and some basic calculus with some manipulations on the integrals was all was needed for me to solve it (I think).
I sincerely apologize for this complete nonsense with the integral thingy.
The final answer which I've gotten to (the potential) after calculating the "difficult" integrals is as follows:
kGiECpk.png


If any of you would like to see the complete solution, I'd be more than happy to write it down.

Thank you guys for all the help!
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #20
The surface charge density and the force acting upon the charge:

3Ox7qjV.png

TfKcLaD.png
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus

FAQ: Finding the potential by Green's function

What is Green's function and how is it used to find the potential?

Green's function is a mathematical concept that is used to solve differential equations in the field of potential theory. It is a function that maps a set of boundary conditions to a solution of the differential equation. In the context of finding the potential, Green's function is used to calculate the electric potential at a given point in space by considering the boundary conditions of the system.

What are the advantages of using Green's function to find the potential?

One of the main advantages of using Green's function is that it provides a systematic and efficient method for solving potential problems. It also allows for the superposition of solutions, making it useful for solving complex systems with multiple sources of potential. Additionally, Green's function can handle non-homogeneous boundary conditions, making it a versatile tool in potential theory.

Can Green's function be used for any type of potential problem?

Yes, Green's function can be used to solve potential problems in any dimension and with any type of boundary conditions. It is a general method that can be applied to a wide range of problems, including problems in electrostatics, magnetostatics, and fluid dynamics.

How is Green's function related to the fundamental solution of Laplace's equation?

The fundamental solution of Laplace's equation is a specific type of Green's function that is used to solve the Laplace equation, which is a common type of differential equation in potential theory. It represents the potential due to a point source at the origin and is often used as a building block for finding the potential in more complex systems.

Are there any limitations to using Green's function to find the potential?

While Green's function is a powerful tool for solving potential problems, it does have some limitations. It may not be applicable to systems with highly irregular or non-uniform boundaries, as the boundary conditions can become difficult to represent mathematically. Additionally, the solution obtained using Green's function may not always be physically realistic, and further analysis may be needed to ensure its validity.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top