Proving Electric Flux Density: eE Determination

In summary: It should be \rho_v + \nabla \cdot \vec P.In summary, we can prove that D = eE by using a general proof and assuming a point charge. However, the formula is not something that needs to be proven, as it is simply a definition. It can be found in "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths 3rd edition, page 175. By defining the electric displacement field as D = \epsilon_0 \vec E + \vec P, we can show that \nabla \cdot \vec D = \rho_{f} and for linear and isotropic materials, we can define \vec D = \epsilon \vec E, where \epsilon = \
  • #1
mym786
11
0
How to prove that D = eE.

Use a general proof. I know how to prove it assuming a point charge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mym786 said:
How to prove that D = eE.

Use a general proof. I know how to prove it assuming a point charge.
I'm not sure what you mean by "prove". That is simply a definition: D=eE because we say so.
 
  • #3
How did we get this formula ?
 
  • #4
mym786 said:
How did we get this formula ?
As I said in my previous post, by definition. There really is nothing to prove. The electric displacement field is simply defined that way.
 
  • #5
Check out "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths 3rd edition, page 175.

[tex]\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = \rho_v + \nabla \cdot \vec P[/tex]

[tex] \epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E + \nabla \cdot \vec P = \rho_{f} \;\Rightarrow \; \nabla \cdot (\epsilon_0 \vec E + \vec P) = \rho_{f} [/tex]

So we define:

[tex] \vec D = \epsilon_0 \vec E + \vec P \;\Rightarrow \; \nabla \cdot \vec D = \rho_{f} [/tex]

For linear and isotropic material:

[tex] \vec P= \epsilon_0 \chi_e \vec E \;\Rightarrow \; \vec D = \epsilon_0(1+ \chi_e) \vec E [/tex]

We define:

[tex] \epsilon_r = 1+ \chi_e \;\hbox { and } \epsilon = \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r \;\Rightarrow \vec D = \epsilon \vec E[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Hi yungman

I think you have a typo; your first line should go

[tex]\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = - \nabla \cdot \vec P + \rho_{f}[/tex]
 
  • #7
dgOnPhys said:
Hi yungman

I think you have a typo; your first line should go

[tex]\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \vec E =\rho_v + \rho_{f} = - \nabla \cdot \vec P + \rho_{f}[/tex]

Yes, sorry!
 

Related to Proving Electric Flux Density: eE Determination

1. What is electric flux density?

Electric flux density, also known as electric displacement, is a measure of the electric field strength per unit area. It is a vector quantity that describes the flow of electric field through a given surface.

2. How is electric flux density related to electric field strength?

The electric flux density (D) is directly related to the electric field strength (E) through the equation D = εE, where ε is the permittivity of the medium. This means that the electric flux density is proportional to the electric field strength.

3. How can electric flux density be determined experimentally?

Electric flux density can be determined experimentally by measuring the electric field strength at different points on a given surface and then calculating the average value. This can be done using specialized equipment such as an electric field meter or by using mathematical calculations based on the geometry of the surface and the known charge distribution.

4. What is the significance of determining electric flux density?

Determining electric flux density is important in understanding the behavior of electric fields in different mediums and predicting the behavior of electrical systems. It is also essential in the design and analysis of electrical devices and circuits.

5. Are there any limitations to using electric flux density to describe electric fields?

Yes, there are limitations to using electric flux density to describe electric fields. It is only valid for linear, isotropic materials and cannot accurately describe the behavior of electric fields in non-linear or anisotropic materials. Additionally, it does not account for the effects of magnetic fields.

Similar threads

  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
980
Replies
1
Views
492
Replies
9
Views
992
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
689
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
780
Back
Top