Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Russakoff 70

    Uploaded by

    DonnyCron
    9 views8 pages

    Original Title

    Russakoff_70

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views8 pages

    Russakoff 70

    Uploaded by

    DonnyCron

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    1188 Pow ‘The total e-current density is ja, where Ja = (0 * ja) /coeten ~ (jus) (eT = (en/aPta? —oin/iaPrin?)n XB. (29) It should be noted that resistance due to electron ion collisions makes no contribution to the 2 current because the drifts due to equal and op- posite forces on electrons and ions are always equal. Resistance to the z current will set up a further y current, jae for electrons and jae for ions. In magnitude, these currents are given by Jaa = (Wet) * jet =~ (wet) ean, Jive = (@erin) “1 % Jie == (orrin) Hare (30) ‘The sequence of reactions continues to infinity. ‘To obtain the total current density in the y di- rection due to electrons, we must sum an infinite geometric series with common ratio ~ (were,)—*. The sum is the first term multiplied by (1+ octet), A similar series must be summed to obtain the total y-current density due to ions. Again, two further such series must be summed for the current density in the « direetion. The BROWNE final result is Dem/ (bette?) + L0y/ 1+: Loon/ eres 1-024) ] —Loin/ocrin(L+a2rat) a XE, (31) ‘The geometrical series fail to converge when (eoten)#>1 and (were) 1>1. The reason is that the drift momenta mVs, mVy1, Ve, mVua, ete, are aequired only after a period of order &-*follow- ing an impulse. These drift momenta cannot, therefore, be lost more rapidly than onee per in- When + falls below this period, re- lysis of the situation is required. "The ease wr <1 has been treated, from the point of view of orbit theory, by Chapman and Cowling.* It is remarkable, in view of their quite different approach, that the result should be identical to Bags. (1)~-the second of Eqs. (31) becomes Chapman and Cowling’s equation for the cm rent in the direction of the drift on noting that (tex)! = inten)! et) HE, 2L. Spiteer, Physice of Fully Lonived Gases, (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1956), pp. 18 and 2. +8, Chapman and T. G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases, (Cambridge U. P., Cam- bridge, Bng., 1052), pp. 325-26. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PuYSICS VvoLuME a8, NUMBER 10 OCTOBER 1970 A Derivation of the Macroscopic Maxwell Equations* G. Rossuxorr Laboratory of Alomic and Solid State Physica, Cornell University, thao, New York 14850 (Received 8 April 1970) We derive the macroscopic Maxwell equations from the microscopic equations of electro- ‘dynamies. The ruethod is based on a modified version of spatial averaging and unifies several past approaches. For simplicity, the derivation presented here is stricted to classical sys- tems, although it may easily be extended ‘o incorporate quantum mechanieal systems. L INTRODUCTION ‘To an excellent approximation matter may be regarded as being composed of point electrons, point nuclei, and microscopic electric and mag- netic fields. The microscopic equations of electro- dynamies predict in detail the behavior of the particles and their fields. The macrascopie equa tions of electrodynamics (the macroscopic Max- well equations) predict the average behavior of the particles and the ficlds. ‘The mucroseopie equations may be derived from the microseopio DERIVATION OF MACROSCOPIC equations by a suitable averaging procedure, a view developed initially by Lorentz. Subsequently, there have been many attempts to provide deriva- tions of increasing rigor, such as those found in the works of Van Vieck;* Rosenfeld,’ Mazur and Nijboer,’ and De Groot. Yet another approach will be presented here, ‘whose fundamental assumption is only that mac~ roscopie quantities are spatial averages of the corresponding microscopic quantities. Past anal- xyses have incorporated one or more combinations of three types of averaging procedures, viz. spatial averaging, time averaging, and ensemble averag- ing. Tt is clearly useful to obtain macroscopic quantities from their microscopic counterparts with the use of a minimum rumber of averaging procedures since such a method will have the widest applicability. We will now argue that of the three we must necessarily retain spatial averaging. Consider the mieroseopie electric field inside 2 solid (an ionie erystal is e good example). On an atomic seale, the mieroseopic electrio field is, obviously a rapidly fluetuating funetion of posi- tion. If we examine the field at a fixed point, we find that it will vary in time because the particles in the solid vibrate relative to their average posi- tions. ‘The time average of the field at the point is obtained by integrating the time varying field at this point over some time interval and dividing by the time span, The ensemble average of the field at a point is obtained by calculating the field at this point due to some configuration (posi- tions and momenta) of the particles, and then averaging over the possible configurations sc- cording to some probability distribution (Boltz- mann’s law, say). Beeause in solids the particles do not move much relative to their average posi- tions, the time or ensemble averaged electric field js alll a rapidly fluctuating function of position and as such, is not an aeveptable macroscopic field. The use of spatial averaging to smooth out these fluctuations is therefore unavoidable. It is often stated that macroscopic quantities are averages over volumes large compared to atomic volumes andl over times long compared to atomic times. The inclusion of time averaging along with spatial averaging is not always correct. For example, optical phenomena, which are fre- quently investigated with the uso of the macro- MAXWELL EQUATIONS 1189 scopi¢ Maxwell equations, often have the same fre- ‘quency as atomic motions. If time averaging were performed, all of the quantities of interest would be averaged to zero, a physically uninteresting result. In order to keep our derivation as general as possible, we will therefore exclude time averag- ing. Furthermore, in the interest of generality, we will not ensemble average. At the completion of our derivation, we will retum to the question of possible additional averages. We will show that the conventional definition of spatial average (essentially that advocated by Lorentz and by Rosenfeld) is defective, and we will substitute for it a modified, more rigorous version. The formal appearance of the resulting equations will resomble those of Mazur and Nijboer and De Groot. The results presented here may, in a sense, be regarded as providing a unifieation of past approaches which are seem- ingly different, In the interests of presenting a proof which is as straightforward as possible, we will neglect the complications of quanturn mechanies and will eon- fine our analysis to classical systems. However, the mathematical formalism and the method of analysis is such that, with minor changes, a quan- tum mechanical derivation ean easily be con- strueted. The results of the quantum mechanieal derivation are essentially identical to the elassieal results and will not be given here. TI, DISCUSSION OF SPATIAL AVERAGES ‘The conventional definition of a spatial average of a microseopie funetion of position A (x) is (A(x))=f dsw(s)4 (x8), a where 1(s) is a real positive function which is constant in some volume of space surrounding 8=0 and is zero otherwise. It is normalized to unity, J dow(s) =1 and has dimensions large compared to molecular sizes. As an example, w(s)= (Sek) if [s|R. Although not specifically written down in the manner of Eq. (1), this definition of spatial aver~ 1190 3 O) ) Fra. 1. The average charge density ss «Function of posic tion (a) and the average polarization as 1 function of position (b). The figures are for a one dimensional system. age is essentially that used by Lorenta and Rosen- {eld However, the form for the weight function w(s) is quite often inadequate (as we shall see) and must be modified. Consider, for example, a system composed of neutral dipoles spatially distributed in any manner. The average charge density and average polarization as a function of position [and as de- fined by Eq. (1)]] are shown schematically in Fig. L. These averages are elearly not smooth but have «steplike form for the following reason: Whenever a ebarge (or « dipole) enters the volume [defined by a(x—s)0], the average charge density (or polarization) ehanges by a diserete and finite amount at x. The interpretation of the equation (p)s— VP is obscured by the fact that (~V-P) is a wildly fluctuating funetion of position and is thus a poor representative of the average density. ‘The large fluctuations in V-P are due of course to the steplike behavior of P. Tt is quite well under- stood in physical terms that what is required is mechanism to smooth the charge density and the polarization [as shown in Wig. (2), 60 that the equation (p)—V-P becomes physically meaningful and valid. ‘Time averaging or ensemble averaging are often invoked to accomplish the necessary smoothing.

    You might also like