Skip to main content
added 5 characters in body
Source Link
Qmechanic
  • 212.8k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k

I was going through example 2.10 in Griffiths  (Introduction to Electrodynamics 4th edition), everything seemed okay, but at last he makes an assertion, the proof for which I am not able to understand.

Nope: As we'll see in the uniqueness theorems of Chapter 3, electrostatics is very stingy with its options; there is always precisely one way -- no more -- of distributing the charge on a conductor so as to make the field inside zero. Having found a possible way, we are guaranteed that no alternative exists, even in principle.

I searched for uniqueness theorems in Chapter 3, and I got two of them, but none of them seem to directly imply that there is always precisely one way- no more--of distributing the charge on a conductor so as to make the field inside zero.

First uniqueness theorem states that:

The solution to Laplace's equation in some volume $V$ is uniquely determined if $V$ is specified on the boundary surface S$S$.

and the second one states that:

In a volume V$V$ surrounded by conductors and containing a specified charge density p$p$, the electric field is uniquely uniquely determined if the total charge on each conductor is given    (Fig. 3.6). (The region as a whole can be bounded by another conductor, or else unbounded.)

My question: How is the assertion made in example 2.10 justified by the uniqueness theorems?

I was going through example 2.10 in Griffiths(Introduction to Electrodynamics 4th edition), everything seemed okay, but at last he makes an assertion, the proof for which I am not able to understand.

Nope: As we'll see in the uniqueness theorems of Chapter 3, electrostatics is very stingy with its options; there is always precisely one way -- no more -- of distributing the charge on a conductor so as to make the field inside zero. Having found a possible way, we are guaranteed that no alternative exists, even in principle.

I searched for uniqueness theorems in Chapter 3, and I got two of them, but none of them seem to directly imply that there is always precisely one way- no more--of distributing the charge on a conductor so as to make the field inside zero.

First uniqueness theorem states that:

The solution to Laplace's equation in some volume $V$ is uniquely determined if $V$ is specified on the boundary surface S.

and the second one states that:

In a volume V surrounded by conductors and containing a specified charge density p, the electric field is uniquely determined if the total charge on each conductor is given  (Fig. 3.6). (The region as a whole can be bounded by another conductor, or else unbounded.)

My question: How is the assertion made in example 2.10 justified by the uniqueness theorems?

I was going through example 2.10 in Griffiths  (Introduction to Electrodynamics 4th edition), everything seemed okay, but at last he makes an assertion, the proof for which I am not able to understand.

Nope: As we'll see in the uniqueness theorems of Chapter 3, electrostatics is very stingy with its options; there is always precisely one way -- no more -- of distributing the charge on a conductor so as to make the field inside zero. Having found a possible way, we are guaranteed that no alternative exists, even in principle.

I searched for uniqueness theorems in Chapter 3, and I got two of them, but none of them seem to directly imply that there is always precisely one way- no more--of distributing the charge on a conductor so as to make the field inside zero.

First uniqueness theorem states that:

The solution to Laplace's equation in some volume $V$ is uniquely determined if $V$ is specified on the boundary surface $S$.

and the second one states that:

In a volume $V$ surrounded by conductors and containing a specified charge density $p$, the electric field is uniquely determined if the total charge on each conductor is given  (Fig. 3.6). (The region as a whole can be bounded by another conductor, or else unbounded.)

My question: How is the assertion made in example 2.10 justified by the uniqueness theorems?

Title is edited.
Link
BioPhysicist
  • 58.5k
  • 19
  • 116
  • 193

Doubt in understanding how How is the Uniqueness Theoremuniqueness theorem is used in this problemexample?

Title is edited.
Link

Problem Doubt in understanding example 2.10how the Uniqueness Theorem is used in Griffiths (Introduction to Electrodynamics)this problem

edited tags
Link
BioPhysicist
  • 58.5k
  • 19
  • 116
  • 193
Loading
added 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
Source Link
Qmechanic
  • 212.8k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k
Loading
Source Link
Loading