Q&A

# Post History

50%
+0 −0

1 answer  ·  posted 9mo ago by deleted user  ·  last activity 9mo ago by deleted user

#5: Post edited by deleted user · 2022-01-01T11:23:38Z (9 months ago)
#4: Post edited by deleted user · 2022-01-01T09:44:48Z (9 months ago)
• \begin{alignat}{2} • && \vec \nabla \cdot \vec D & = \rho_f \\\\ • & \implies &\int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec D \mathrm d\tau & = \int_V \rho_f\\ \mathrm d \tau \\\\ • & \implies & \oint_S \vec D \cdot \mathrm d \vec a & = \oint_S \sigma_f \\ da • \end{alignat}
• I used divergence theorem for the first term and $dq=\sigma da=\rho d\tau$ (integral changes for different values.(?)) for the second term. I was thinking I should use closed integral for the second term or not. Then I realized I was thinking of charge density in a specific field (we are ignoring outside charges) that's why I took a closed field.
• Since both integrand are same we can take out both integral.
• $$\vec D\cdot \hat n = \sigma_f$$
• Here $\vec D \cdot d\vec a = \vec D \cdot \hat n \\ da$ and $\sigma_f$ is used for free charges in an area. I know that $\vec D$ is electric displacement. But what wondered me here that is how electric displacement is proportional (equal?) to surface charge area. After deriving the equation what came to my mind that is perhaps my understanding of electric displacement is wrong.
• >when we put a charge conductor (which is uniformly charged) in a charge-less conductor the chargeless conductor feels some attraction toward electric field, that's what called electric displacement.
• I think my understanding is completely wrong. So what is electric displacement? And is my derivation really correct? I had found a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field), they didn't explain but wrote "further explanation needed" (they want someone else to re-edit that page).
• I think I had seen the equation in Griffiths book. Perhaps it was my bad, cause I can't find it again and I saw an expression where polarization is equal (proportional) to surface charge.
• \begin{alignat}{2} • && \vec \nabla \cdot \vec D & = \rho_f \\\\ • & \implies &\int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec D \mathrm d\tau & = \int_V \rho_f\\ \mathrm d \tau \\\\ • & \implies & \oint_S \vec D \cdot \mathrm d \vec a & = \oint_S \sigma_f \\ da • \end{alignat}
• I used divergence theorem for the first term and $dq=\sigma da=\rho d\tau$ (integral changes for different values.(?)) for the second term. I was thinking I should use closed integral for the second term or not. Then I realized I was thinking of charge density in a specific field (we are ignoring outside charges) that's why I took a closed field.
• Since both integrand are same we can take out both integral.
• $$\vec D\cdot \hat n = \sigma_f$$
• Here $\vec D \cdot d\vec a = \vec D \cdot \hat n \\ da$ and $\sigma_f$ is used for free charges in an area. I know that $\vec D$ is electric displacement. But what wondered me here that is how electric displacement is proportional (equal?) to surface charge area. After deriving the equation what came to my mind that is perhaps my understanding of electric displacement is wrong.
• >when we put a charge conductor (which is uniformly charged) in a charge-less conductor the chargeless conductor feels some attraction toward electric field, that's what called electric displacement.
• I think my understanding is completely wrong. So what is electric displacement? And is my derivation really correct? I had found a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field), they didn't explain but wrote "further explanation needed" (they want someone else to re-edit that page).
• While solving problem 4.18 (a) of Griffiths EM I found the similar equation where they found $$\int \vec D \cdot da=Q_{f_{enc}} \\\\ \implies \vec D A=\sigma A \\\\ \implies \vec D=\sigma$$ my approach was related also.
#3: Post edited by deleted user · 2021-12-31T15:56:29Z (9 months ago)
• \begin{alignat}{2} • && \vec \nabla \cdot \vec D & = \rho_f \\\\ • & \implies &\int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec D \mathrm d\tau & = \int_V \rho_f\\ \mathrm d \tau \\\\ • & \implies & \oint_S \vec D \cdot \mathrm d \vec a & = \oint_S \sigma_f \\ da • \end{alignat}
• I used divergence theorem for the first term and $dq=\sigma da=\rho d\tau$ (integral changes for different values.(?)) for the second term. I was thinking I should use closed integral for the second term or not. Then I realized I was thinking of charge density in a specific field (we are ignoring outside charges) that's why I took a closed field.
• Since both integrand are same we can take out both integral.
• $$\vec D\cdot \hat n = \sigma_f$$
• Here $\vec D \cdot d\vec a = \vec D \cdot \hat n \\ da$ and $\sigma_f$ is used for free charges in an area. I know that $\vec D$ is electric displacement. But what wondered me here that is how electric displacement is proportional (equal?) to surface charge area. After deriving the equation what came to my mind that is perhaps my understanding of electric displacement is wrong.
• >when we put a charge conductor (which is uniformly charged) in a charge-less conductor the chargeless conductor feels some attraction toward electric field, that's what called electric displacement.
• I think my understanding is completely wrong. So what is electric displacement? And is my derivation really correct? I had found a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field), they didn't explain but wrote "further explanation needed" (they want someone else to re-edit that page).
• \begin{alignat}{2} • && \vec \nabla \cdot \vec D & = \rho_f \\\\ • & \implies &\int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec D \mathrm d\tau & = \int_V \rho_f\\ \mathrm d \tau \\\\ • & \implies & \oint_S \vec D \cdot \mathrm d \vec a & = \oint_S \sigma_f \\ da • \end{alignat}
• I used divergence theorem for the first term and $dq=\sigma da=\rho d\tau$ (integral changes for different values.(?)) for the second term. I was thinking I should use closed integral for the second term or not. Then I realized I was thinking of charge density in a specific field (we are ignoring outside charges) that's why I took a closed field.
• Since both integrand are same we can take out both integral.
• $$\vec D\cdot \hat n = \sigma_f$$
• Here $\vec D \cdot d\vec a = \vec D \cdot \hat n \\ da$ and $\sigma_f$ is used for free charges in an area. I know that $\vec D$ is electric displacement. But what wondered me here that is how electric displacement is proportional (equal?) to surface charge area. After deriving the equation what came to my mind that is perhaps my understanding of electric displacement is wrong.
• >when we put a charge conductor (which is uniformly charged) in a charge-less conductor the chargeless conductor feels some attraction toward electric field, that's what called electric displacement.
• I think my understanding is completely wrong. So what is electric displacement? And is my derivation really correct? I had found a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field), they didn't explain but wrote "further explanation needed" (they want someone else to re-edit that page).
• I think I had seen the equation in Griffiths book. Perhaps it was my bad, cause I can't find it again and I saw an expression where polarization is equal (proportional) to surface charge.
#2: Post edited by Derek Elkins‭ · 2021-12-27T01:38:04Z (9 months ago)
Improve formatting of implications
How electric displacement is proportional to surface charge?
• $$\vec • abla \cdot \vec D = ho_f$$
• $$=>\int_V \vec{ • abla} \cdot \vec D \mathrm d\tau=\int_V ho_f \mathrm d \tau$$
• $$=>\oint_S \vec D \cdot \mathrm d \vec a = \oint_S \sigma_f \\ da$$
• I used divergence theorem for the first term and $dq=\sigma da=\rho d\tau$ (integral changes for different values.(?)) for the second term. I was thinking I should use closed integral for the second term or not. Then I realized I was thinking of charge density in a specific field (we are ignoring outside charges) that's why I took a closed field.
• Since both integrand are same we can take out both integral.
• $$\vec D\cdot \hat n = \sigma_f$$
• Here $\vec D \cdot d\vec a = \vec D \cdot \hat n \\ da$ and $\sigma_f$ is used for free charges in an area. I know that $\vec D$ is electric displacement. But what wondered me here that is how electric displacement is proportional (equal?) to surface charge area. After deriving the equation what came to my mind that is perhaps my understanding of electric displacement is wrong.
• >when we put a charge conductor (which is uniformly charged) in a charge-less conductor the chargeless conductor feels some attraction toward electric field, that's what called electric displacement.
• I think my understanding is completely wrong. So what is electric displacement? And is my derivation really correct? I had found a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field), they didn't explain but wrote "further explanation needed" (they want someone else to re-edit that page).
• \begin{alignat}{2} • && \vec • abla \cdot \vec D & = ho_f \\\\ • & \implies &\int_V \vec{ • abla} \cdot \vec D \mathrm d\tau & = \int_V ho_f\\ \mathrm d \tau \\\\ • & \implies & \oint_S \vec D \cdot \mathrm d \vec a & = \oint_S \sigma_f \\ da • \end{alignat}
• I used divergence theorem for the first term and $dq=\sigma da=\rho d\tau$ (integral changes for different values.(?)) for the second term. I was thinking I should use closed integral for the second term or not. Then I realized I was thinking of charge density in a specific field (we are ignoring outside charges) that's why I took a closed field.
• Since both integrand are same we can take out both integral.
• $$\vec D\cdot \hat n = \sigma_f$$
• Here $\vec D \cdot d\vec a = \vec D \cdot \hat n \\ da$ and $\sigma_f$ is used for free charges in an area. I know that $\vec D$ is electric displacement. But what wondered me here that is how electric displacement is proportional (equal?) to surface charge area. After deriving the equation what came to my mind that is perhaps my understanding of electric displacement is wrong.
• >when we put a charge conductor (which is uniformly charged) in a charge-less conductor the chargeless conductor feels some attraction toward electric field, that's what called electric displacement.
• I think my understanding is completely wrong. So what is electric displacement? And is my derivation really correct? I had found a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field), they didn't explain but wrote "further explanation needed" (they want someone else to re-edit that page).
#1: Initial revision by deleted user · 2021-12-24T15:54:17Z (9 months ago)
How electric displacement is proportional to surface charge?
$$\vec \nabla \cdot \vec D = \rho_f$$
$$=>\int_V \vec{ \nabla} \cdot \vec D \mathrm d\tau=\int_V \rho_f \mathrm d \tau$$
$$=>\oint_S \vec D \cdot \mathrm d \vec a = \oint_S \sigma_f \\ da$$

I used divergence theorem for the first term and $dq=\sigma da=\rho d\tau$ (integral changes for different values.(?)) for the second term. I was thinking I should use closed integral for the second term or not. Then I realized I was thinking of charge density in a specific field (we are ignoring outside charges) that's why I took a closed field.

Since both integrand are same we can take out both integral.

$$\vec D\cdot \hat n = \sigma_f$$

Here $\vec D \cdot d\vec a = \vec D \cdot \hat n \\ da$ and $\sigma_f$ is used for free charges in an area. I know that $\vec D$ is electric displacement. But what wondered me here that is how electric displacement is proportional (equal?) to surface charge area. After deriving the equation what came to my mind that is perhaps my understanding of electric displacement is wrong.

>when we put a charge conductor (which is uniformly charged) in a charge-less conductor the chargeless conductor feels some attraction toward electric field, that's what called electric displacement.

I think my understanding is completely wrong. So what is electric displacement? And is my derivation really correct? I had found a [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field), they didn't explain but wrote "further explanation needed" (they want someone else to re-edit that page).