| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
To repeat: There is no God-given grounded shell at "infinity" withrespect
to which we should measure voltages. There can be an arbitrary gauge(t)at
infinity, just like anywhere else
At 03:24 PM 3/10/01 -0500, Bob Sciamanda wrote:of
. . . Gauge invariance allows us to make the transformation
(V1, V2, V3) --> (V1+k, V2+k, V3+k)
any time we want. This applies to *any* system,
no matter what the size /
shape / location of the objects.
As a special case, we can choose k=-V3,
which is tantamount to forcing V3=0
and making all voltage measurements relative thereto.
The point is that your k = V3 is not a "constant " - it changes value
(relative to infinity) as the system goes into different states.
Ahhh, now we are making progress!!!!!
We are free to choose a time-varying gauge!!!!!
In particular:
del^2(phi) = del^2(phi + k(t))
for any k(t) depending on time but not depending on location.
I feel like a total oaf for not realizing this was bothering people.
Why is not object 3 a meaningful reference point,
regardless of its size / > shape / location?
It is a fine reference point if you are only interested in differences
Ipotential in a given, single, system state. But how do you examine the
behavior of the reference point V3 as the system changes from state to
state (ie, the Q's and V's all change - except of course your V3)?
I just turn the crank. Because of the aforementioned gauge(t) freedom,
can let the system do whatever it wants, THEN set V3 back to zero.particular,
Another way of saying this is that if one were to refer your calculated
potentials to infinity, each system state would need a different k (its
own gauge).
A true observation -- but not a problem. So be it! Let each state have
its own k.
To compare different states one must somewhere refer to a point whose
potential is unaffected by changing system states (eg: infinity).
There is nothing special about the "point" at "infinity". In
Laplace's equation doesn't know (or need to know) whether there is anysuch
place as "infinity". Laplace's equation, including gauge(t) invariance,which
applies just fine in a universe with periodic boundary conditions, in
case there obviously is no such place as "infinity".problem
Here's a generally useful conceptual and pedagogical technique: given a
tricky physics problem, especially one involving "infinity", do the
in a finite universe with periodic boundary conditions, THEN let thesize
become very large. The periodic boundary conditions allow you to havelimiting
something that is finite yet doesn't have any nasty edges to complicate
things.
If "infinity" means anything at all, it must refer to a convergent
process. By definition of convergence, the value of the limit must bevia
independent of the path taken to reach the limit, so the path that goes
a large, periodic universe must be as good as any.respect
Note that my spreadsheets for solving Laplace's equations
http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/laplace.xls
and
http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/laplace-adv.xls
are set up to implement periodic boundary conditions as described at
http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/laplace.html
To repeat: There is no God-given grounded shell at "infinity" with
to which we should measure voltages. There can be an arbitrary gauge(t)at
infinity, just like anywhere else.