Griffiths' : Electrostatic Energy

In summary, the conversation discusses the expression for electrostatic energy of a continuous charge distribution and how it is obtained through different methods including integrating by parts and Poynting's Theorem. The participants also touch on the role of boundary terms and the behavior of the integrals at large distances. Reilly Atkinson also mentions another derivation method involving assembling the distribution element by element.
  • #1
neutrino
2,094
2
Griffiths : Electrostatic Energy

I'm having a little difficulty in understanding how one arrives at the following expression for electrostatic energy of a continuous charge distribution.

[tex]W = \frac{\epsilon_o}{2}\int (\vec{E})^2d\tau[/tex]

This result is obtained when the volume of integration is increased without limit in

[tex]W = \frac{\epsilon_o}{2} ( \int (\vec{E})^2d\tau + \oint V \vec{E} \cdot d\vec{a}) [/tex]

For large ditances from the charge [itex]V[/itex] goes like [itex]\frac{1}{r}[/itex] while [itex]\vec{E}[/itex] goes like [itex]\frac{1}{r^2}[/itex], and the area increases as [itex]r^2[/itex]. Therefore the surface integral is roughly [itex]\frac{1}{r}[/itex]. Griffiths says that the volume integral must increase owing to the positive integrand. But can't we apply similar logic as above and say that volume integral also rougly goes like [itex]\frac{1}{r}[/itex] as we increase of the volume of integration?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The r in the surface integral is a constant, the radius of a large sphere.
The r in the volume integral varies from 0 to the radius of the bounding sphere, so there is always small r for the volume integral.
 
  • #3
What Griffiths does here is standard practice when integrating by parts, always look to eliminate the boundary term by physical argument, i.e. the potential due to some charge distribution vanishes at infinity. Like Meir said, the surface integral is evaluated only at the boudary of the system, which conveniently for us is user definable!
 
  • #4
Thank you, Meir Achuz and jarvis. It understand it a bit better now. :smile:

(I actually forgot that I had posted this question, and hence the late reply :blushing: )
 
  • #5
Another way to get this expression, which I always thought was the standard elementary derivation, is to assemble the distribution adiabatically, charge element by element. As the distribution is assembled, bringing in the incoming charge requires the assembler to work against the charge already in place. See any freshman text.

The fancy way, good for static or dynamic fields comes from Poynting's Thrm, which you can find in more advanced texts -- Jackson, for example.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 

Related to Griffiths' : Electrostatic Energy

1. What is Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy?

Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy is a concept in electrostatics that refers to the energy stored in an electric field. It is named after the physicist David J. Griffiths, who introduced it in his textbook "Introduction to Electrodynamics".

2. How is Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy calculated?

The formula for calculating Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy is U = (1/2) ∫E*P dτ, where U is the energy, E is the electric field, and P is the electric polarization. This formula takes into account the energy stored in the electric field as well as the energy stored in the material due to its polarizability.

3. What is the significance of Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy?

Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy is important because it helps us understand how energy is stored and transferred in electrostatic systems. It also allows us to calculate the work done in moving charges in an electric field.

4. How does Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy relate to electric potential?

Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy is related to electric potential through the formula U = (1/2)CV^2, where C is the capacitance and V is the voltage. This formula shows that the energy stored in an electric field is directly proportional to the square of the voltage.

5. Can Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy be negative?

Yes, Griffiths' Electrostatic Energy can be negative. This happens when the electric field and the polarization are in opposite directions, resulting in a negative value for the energy. This is often the case in dielectric materials, where the electric field polarizes the material in the opposite direction.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
733
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
774
Replies
3
Views
779
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
2
Views
829
Replies
8
Views
733
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
Back
Top