1
$\begingroup$

I know Gauss' divergence theorem, according to which $$\iiint_D\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{F}\text{d}x\text{d}y\text{d}z=\iint_{\partial D}\boldsymbol{F}\cdot\boldsymbol{N}_e\text{d}\sigma$$ where $D$ is a solid region satisfying various regularity conditions, whose frontier is $\partial D$, having external unit normal vector $\boldsymbol{N}_e$, and where $\boldsymbol{F}:A\subset\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3$, $\boldsymbol{F}\in C^1(A)$ with $A$ open and such that $\bar{D}\subset A$. I read a derivation of Gaus's law in differential form $\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{E}=\rho/\varepsilon_0$, where $\boldsymbol{E}$ is the electric field, $\varepsilon_0$ is vacuum permittivity and $\rho$ the density of electric charge, from the divergence theorem. In fact, Gauss' laws says that the charge contained in the volume $D$ is $Q=\varepsilon_0\iint_{\partial D}\boldsymbol{E}\cdot\boldsymbol{N}_e\text{d}\sigma$ and, by using the aforesaid theorem, $$\iiint_D\rho \text{d}x\text{d}y\text{d}z=Q=\varepsilon_0\iint_{\partial D}\boldsymbol{E}\cdot\boldsymbol{N}_e\text{d}\sigma=\varepsilon_0\iiint_D\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{E}\text{d}x\text{d}y\text{d}z$$whence, if we chose $D$ as a parallelepiped, by dividing by the sides of $D$ and by letting the diagonal of $D$ approach $0$, we prove that $\varepsilon_0\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{E}=\rho$. But, in this reasoning, we assume that $\boldsymbol{E}$ satisfies the conditions upon $\boldsymbol{F}$ necessary for the divergence theorem to hold.

Nevertheless, if $\rho(\boldsymbol{x}_0)\ne 0$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_0\in D$, how can $\boldsymbol{E}(\boldsymbol{x}_0)=k\int_D\rho(\boldsymbol{x})\|\boldsymbol{x}_0-\boldsymbol{x}\|^{-3}(\boldsymbol{x}_0-\boldsymbol{x})\text{d}x\text{d}y\text{d}z$ (where, as in "standard" notation, $(x,y,z)=\boldsymbol{x}$) exist, finite, how can the field exist finite everywhere and be even of $\boldsymbol{E}\in C^1(\bar{D})$? Is this one of the cases where physics is not as mathematically rigourous as mathematics itself, as I have been expained here to happen, or am I missing something? I heartily thank you for any answer.


Update (Oct 22 '15) with my trial to prove that $\boldsymbol{E}\in C^k$ using what Dominik, whom I thank again, says in his answer:

Let $\rho\in C^{k}(A)$, $k\ge 0$, where $A$ is an open set such that $\bar{D}\subset A$ and $\forall\boldsymbol{x}\notin \bar{D}\quad\rho(\boldsymbol{x})=0$, with $\bar{D}$ closed and bounded. Without loss of generality I think we can assume $A=\mathbb{R}^3$ because $\rho$ can be extended to such a function. Then the function $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}$ defined by $\varphi(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{x}_0)=-k\frac{\rho(\boldsymbol{x}+\boldsymbol{x}_0)}{\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^3}x$ (and all that I am going to say can be repeated with $y$ and $z$ in place of $x$), is Lebesgue integrable on all $\mathbb{R}^3$ :$$(\boldsymbol{E}(\boldsymbol{x}_0))_x=\int_D\frac{k\rho(\boldsymbol{x})}{\|\boldsymbol{x}_0-\boldsymbol{x}\|^3}(x_0-x)d\mu_\boldsymbol{x}=\int_{D-\boldsymbol{x_0}}\varphi(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{x}_0)d\mu_\boldsymbol{x}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\varphi d\mu_\boldsymbol{x}.$$ We can see, if $k\ge 1$, that the conditions upon $\rho$ guarantee that the derivatives $\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial x_0}$, $\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial y_0}$ and $\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial z_0}$ all exists, are, for almost all $\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbb{R}^3$, continuous in $\boldsymbol{x}_0$ on all $\mathbb{R}^3$ and Lebesgue integrable on the same domain, therefore, by using a standard corollary about differentiation under the integral sign to Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, we have, for ex. for the derivative with respect to $y_0$, but the same applies to $x_0$ and $z_0$, that $$\bigg(\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{E}}{\partial y_0}\bigg)_x=\frac{\partial }{\partial y_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\varphi d\mu_\boldsymbol{x}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial y_0} d\mu_\boldsymbol{x}$$Moreover, since the derivative is bounded by the Lebsgue summable function $\boldsymbol{x}\mapsto\frac{x}{\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^3}\max_{\bar{D}}\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial y_0}$, Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem guarantees that, for any sequence $\{\boldsymbol{x}_{0,n}\}$ such that $\boldsymbol{x}_{0,n}\to\boldsymbol{x}_{0}$, $$\bigg(\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{E}}{\partial y_0}(\boldsymbol{x}_{0,n})\bigg)_x=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial y_0}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{x}_{0,n}) d\mu_\boldsymbol{x}\to\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial y_0}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{x}_{0}) d\mu_\boldsymbol{x}=\bigg(\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{E}}{\partial y_0}(\boldsymbol{x}_0)\bigg)_x$$ If we repeat the same reasonings made for $\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial y_0}$ for all the derivatives up to the $k$-th, or just for $\varphi$ if $k=0$, we see that $\boldsymbol{E}\in C^k(\mathbb{R}^3)$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A heuristic way to see why the integral converges is to imagine doing it in spherical coordinates around $x_0$. The integrand goes as $1/r^2$ and the volume element goes as $r^2$, so they cancel and everything is finite. $\endgroup$ – Javier Oct 2 '15 at 1:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Javier Thank you very much! Your comment has permitted me to understand why $\int_{B_\epsilon (\mathbf{x}_0)}\|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_0\|^{-2}d\mathbf{x}=4\pi\epsilon$ in Dominik's answer. $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Oct 2 '15 at 11:35
2
$\begingroup$

This is one of the places where we can make things perfectly rigorous if we make certain assumptions on the charge density $\rho$ (and $D$). I will rigorously show you in the following that $\Vert \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}_{0}) \Vert < \infty$ for all $\mathbf{x}_{0}$ in the interior of $D$, assuming that $\rho \in (L^{1} \cap L^{\infty})(D)$.

The only dangerous place lies in $\mathbf{x}_{0}$, where the integrand is singular.Pick $\epsilon > 0 $ such that the ball of radius $\epsilon$ around $\mathbf{x}_{0}$, let's call it $B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0})$, is contained in $D$. Then $$\Vert \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}_{0}) \Vert \leq \int\limits_{D} \frac{ \vert \rho(\mathbf{x})\vert}{\Vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0} \Vert^{2}} d\mathbf{x} =\int\limits_{D \backslash B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0})} \frac{ \vert \rho(\mathbf{x})\vert}{\Vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0} \Vert^{2}} d\mathbf{x}+\int\limits_{B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0})} \frac{ \vert \rho(\mathbf{x})\vert}{\Vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0} \Vert^{2}} d\mathbf{x}.$$

Using standard inequalities we find that $$\int\limits_{D \backslash B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0})} \frac{ \vert \rho(\mathbf{x})\vert}{\Vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0} \Vert^{2}} d\mathbf{x} \leq \frac{1}{\epsilon^{2}}\int\limits_{D \backslash B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0})} \vert \rho(\mathbf{x})\vert d\mathbf{x} \leq \frac{1}{\epsilon^{2}} \Vert \rho \Vert_{L^{1}(D)}$$ and that $$\int\limits_{B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0})} \frac{ \vert \rho(\mathbf{x})\vert}{\Vert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0} \Vert^{2}} d\mathbf{x} \leq \Vert \rho \Vert_{L^{\infty}(B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0}))} \int\limits_{B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{0})} \frac{ 1}{\Vert \mathbf{y}\Vert^{2}} d\mathbf{y} = \Vert \rho \Vert_{L^{\infty}(B_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{x}_{0}))} 4 \pi \epsilon, $$ where the volume element of the ball absorbed the singularity of the integrand.

Therefore we have $\Vert \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}_{0}) \Vert \leq \frac{1}{\epsilon^{2}} \Vert \rho \Vert_{L^{1}(D)} + 4 \pi \epsilon \Vert \rho \Vert_{L^{\infty}(D)} < \infty$.

The same analysis works out on the boundary $\partial D$ as well (with minor changes).

I will give you some hints in how one could get continuity/differentiability for $\mathbf{E}$:

  • Continue $\rho$ to the entirety of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ by 0 and call that charge density $\tilde{\rho}$. Then $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}_{0})=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \tilde{\rho}(\mathbf{x}) \frac{\mathbf{x}_{0}-\mathbf{x}}{\Vert\mathbf{x}_{0}-\mathbf{x}\Vert^{3}} d\mathbf{x} = \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \tilde{\rho}(\mathbf{x}_{0}-\mathbf{y}) \frac{\mathbf{y}}{\Vert\mathbf{y}\Vert^{3}} d\mathbf{y}$ by substituting $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0}$. A theorem like Lebesgue's dominated convergence then allows you to show continuity, since it allows you to pull limits inside the integral for nice $\rho$.
  • The same expression allows you to differentiate under the integral sign, again under certain assumptions on $\rho$.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! I cannot still prove that $\mathbf{E}\in C^1(\bar{D})$. A commonly used condition for differentiability under the integral sign would require, for almost all $\mathbf{x}\in D$ and for all $x′$ in a neighbourhood of $x_0$, the derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial x'}\frac{k\rho(\mathbf{x})(x′−x)}{\|\mathbf{x}−(x′\mathbf{i}+ y_0 \mathbf{j}+ z_0 \mathbf{k})\|^3}$ to exist and satisfy the inequality $\big|\frac{\partial}{\partial x'}\frac{k\rho(\mathbf{x})(x′−x)}{\|\mathbf{x}−(x′\mathbf{i}+ y_0 \mathbf{j}+ z_0 \mathbf{k})\|^3}\big|\le\varphi(\mathbf{x})$ ... $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Oct 2 '15 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ ... where $\varphi\in L^1(D)$. A commonly used $\varphi$ is a constant function, but here the derivative isn't bounded... $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Oct 2 '15 at 13:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you use the expression $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{x}_{0})=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \tilde{\rho}(\mathbf{x}_{0}-\mathbf{y}) \frac{\mathbf{y}}{\Vert \mathbf{y} \Vert^{3}} d\mathbf{y}$, then the only place where the derivative lands is on $\tilde{\rho}$. So if you assume for example that $\rho \in C^{1}_{0}(D)$ (the ${}_{0}$ should indicate compact support), then everything works out just fine. $\endgroup$ – Dominik Oct 2 '15 at 13:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This kind of charge distribution has to be treated in the sense of distributions. $\endgroup$ – Dominik Oct 3 '15 at 18:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, these expressions diverge. (It comes from the fact that if you want a non-zero charge on a line or surface, who have both volume 0 in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, you somehow need to introduce a special type of charge distribution, this time in the sense of distributions and not in terms of classical functions.) $\endgroup$ – Dominik Oct 4 '15 at 9:39
1
$\begingroup$

An alternative and shorter answer is that the expression you cite for $\bf{E}(\bf{x}_0)$ makes use of the Green function $\bf{G}(\bf{x}; \bf{y}) = \bf{G}(\bf{x} - \bf{y})$ satisfying the distributional equation $$ \nabla_{\bf{x}} \cdot \bf{G}(\bf{x}-\bf{y}) = \delta(\bf{x} - \bf{y}) $$ and reading $$ {\bf G}(\bf{x} - \bf{y}) = \frac{\bf{x} - \bf{y}}{|\bf{x} - \bf{y}|^3} $$ In terms of $\bf{G}$ the solution to the inhomogeneous equation $\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \bf{E} = \rho(\bf{x})$ is

$$ \bf{E}(\bf{x}) = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0 }\int{ \rho(\bf{y})\bf{G}\left( \bf{x} - \bf{y} \right) d {\bf y} }= \frac{1}{\epsilon_0 } \int{ \rho(\bf{y})\frac{\bf{x} - \bf{y}}{|\bf{x} - \bf{y}|^3} d {\bf y}} $$

since it can be easily verified that $$ \epsilon_0 \nabla_{\bf{x}} \cdot \bf{E}(\bf{x}) = \int{\rho(\bf{y}) \nabla_{\bf{x}} \cdot \frac{\bf{x} - \bf{y}}{|\bf{x} - \bf{y}|^3} {\text d} \bf{y}} = \int{\rho(\bf{y}) \delta(\bf{x} - \bf{y}) d \bf{y} } = \rho(\bf{x}) $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Dominik Typed in a hurry and had a bunch of typos, sorry. I fixed most, but I still see a bunch of bolds where there shouldn't be any. For instance, the "dy" under the integrals are meant to be "dy". $\endgroup$ – udrv Oct 2 '15 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much for your answer! I hope to understand it when I know more than the very few things about distributions that I've learnt from Kolmogorov-Fomin's. $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Oct 2 '15 at 11:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.