1
$\begingroup$

Now if I have the electric potential as a function of $x$, $y$ and $z$. I use the Poisson equation to calculate the charge distribution and I obtain a charge distribution as a function of $x$, $y$ and $z$. Now, if I know that the charge lies entirely on a surface in 3d Cartesian coordinates and the potential on the surface is described by a function of its parametric variables. Can I use the Poisson equation as follows?

--- I take the laplacian of the potential function (which is a function of the parametric variables) with respect to the parametric variables and equate it to $-\rho/\epsilon$ not?

$$\frac{d^2v}{ds^2}+\frac{d^2v}{dt^2} =-\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}$$ (where $s$ and $t$ are the parametric variables.)

This will give the charge density as a function of $s$ and $t$ (the parametric variables) and is defined on the surface. Is this true? Thanks

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It depends on precisely how your parametric variables are defined. For general curvilinear coordinates the Laplacian is a bit more complex than that, see here. $\endgroup$ – lemon Jan 14 '17 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ Cant we just use the regular laplacian that is defined in rectangular coordinates since we are have parametrized the surface. Hence the surface is basically derived from the flat s-t plane? $\endgroup$ – Chandrahas Jan 14 '17 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ Again, it depends on precisely how your coordinates are defined. If they're simply $s=x$ and $t=y$, for example, then you can... $\endgroup$ – lemon Jan 14 '17 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ why cant I do that if they are not x and y? can you elaborate on that? $\endgroup$ – Chandrahas Jan 14 '17 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ Here's a simple illustration of why. Suppose you have $s=x$ and $t=2y$, then the Laplacian (as you've written it) will not be the same as if $s=x$ and $t=y$. So your answer then becomes coordinate-dependent which it should not be! $\endgroup$ – lemon Jan 14 '17 at 17:55
0
$\begingroup$

In general, the Poisson equation in a Riemannian manifold $M$ is given by,

$$\nabla_i \nabla^i \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}$$

where $\nabla_i \nabla^i$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator, which acting on a scalar is simply,

$$\nabla_i \nabla^i \phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\partial_i (\sqrt{|g|}g^{ij}\partial_j \phi)$$

for the metric $g_{ij}$ on $M$, and coordinates $\{x^i\}$ on $M$. Now, if we have a surface or sub-manifold $\Sigma$ embedded in $M$ with coordinates $\{\sigma^a\}$, then the charge density in terms of $\{\sigma^a\}$ satisfies,

$$\nabla_a \nabla^a \phi= -\frac{\rho(\sigma)}{\epsilon}$$

where $\nabla_a \nabla^a$ is now the Laplace-Beltrami operator, but for the induced metric on $\Sigma$, given by,

$$\gamma_{ab} = \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial \sigma^a}\frac{\partial x^j}{\partial \sigma^b} g_{ij}$$

which is the pullback of $g$ onto $\Sigma$ and $x^i(\sigma)$ are the embedding functions of $\Sigma$.

$\endgroup$

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.