1

enter image description here

enter image description here

The 4 conditions above are what I am being taught, and I am aware of the usual boundary conditions of electric field and potential, but that links to surface charge density, and I was wondering how do I solve it in 2D case, where in this question, they ask for linear charge density, how should I link the boundary conditions equations to get linear charge density?

John Rennie
  • 355,118

2 Answers2

0

In the boundary condition $$ \frac{\partial {V_{above}}}{\partial {n}}-\frac{\partial {V_{below}}}{\partial {n}}=-\frac{\sigma}{\epsilon_0} $$ you have $V_{above}=0$ and the normal points in the $y$ direction. $$ \sigma=\epsilon_0\frac{\partial {V}}{\partial {y}} $$

F. Wright
  • 116
  • 1
    I think it can not be this way. σ is surface density, not linear density. The equations he gave are 3D equations, and the question was about transforming them, I believe. – Marc Barceló Mar 13 '22 at 19:16
0

Summary: just replace $\sigma$ with $\lambda$ and everything's the same otherwise.

In 2-D, the integral form of Gauss's Law is still $$ \frac{Q_\text{enc}}{\epsilon_0} = \oint \vec{E} \cdot d\vec{a}. $$ but now the integral is over a closed loop (rather than a surface, with $d\vec{a}$ and $Q_\text{enc}$ refers to the charge enclosed in an area (not a volume).

To figure out how this relates to the discontinuity in $V$ at a boundary, we imagine taking as our integration volume a narrow rectangle, with two longer sides of length $\ell$ running parallel to the the boundary at a distance $\pm \epsilon$ inside & outside, and two short sides connecting the ends of the longer sides. In other words, we take the 2D analog of a "Gaussian pillbox". By the same logic as in the 3D case, we have $$ \frac{\lambda \ell}{\epsilon_0} = \ell(\vec{E}_1 \cdot \vec{n}) - \ell (\vec{E}_2 \cdot {n}) $$ where $\hat{n}$ is a unit normal pointing from region 2 into region 1. The factors of $\ell$ cancel, and since we have $\vec{E}_1 \cdot \hat{n} = - \partial V_1/\partial n$, we conclude that $$ - \frac{\lambda}{\epsilon_0} = \frac{\partial V_1}{\partial n} - \frac{\partial V_2}{\partial n}, $$ just as we would expect from naïvely replacing $\sigma \to \lambda$.

  • Where did you read that in 2-D that was the Gauss's Law? I think it is not that. – Marc Barceló Mar 15 '22 at 19:11
  • @MarcBarceló: It probably depends on how you define the units of charge and of $\epsilon_0$. Certainly the natural generalization is that $\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E} \propto \sigma$, where $\sigma$ is charge per area. My version sets the proportionality constant to be $1/\epsilon_0$. A different proportionality constant would change the $\epsilon_0$ in my result, but the fact that $\Delta (\partial V/\partial n) \propto - \lambda$ should still hold. – Michael Seifert Mar 15 '22 at 19:29
  • But E·da implies the vector of area goes out of the screen and needs a third dimension, but as you are using only two you can not define the gauss's law in that way.Here you can see information about gauss law in 2-D : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206911/what-is-gausss-law-in-two-dimensions – Marc Barceló Mar 15 '22 at 19:35
  • @MarcBarceló: My $d\vec{a}$ is equivalent to the $\hat{n} dl$ there. (Also, are you implying that taking the dot product of vectors requires a third dimension? It's perfectly possible to define a dot product in 2D.) – Michael Seifert Mar 15 '22 at 19:38
  • No, I am not, but you can not define the normal vector of a surface in 2-D. Apart from that, you can not substitute surface density with linear density. – Marc Barceló Mar 15 '22 at 19:44
  • @MarcBarceló: In 2D, the infinitesimal "normal vector" from a closed vector would be the vector that points outward from the curve and is at right angles to it. That's what I mean by $d\vec{a}$. It's not proportional to area, of course, but I couldn't come up with a better notation for it (using $\vec{E} \cdot d\vec{l}$ would have been even more confusing.) – Michael Seifert Mar 15 '22 at 19:51
  • That is what I tried at first too because I can’t link elsewhere. But I am unsure how correct is this. Since Somehow I couldt find the BC for 2D problems – helloworld Mar 16 '22 at 01:32