Current density and theorem of curl of curl

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the theorem of curl of curl in the context of current density as presented in Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics." Participants are examining the mathematical manipulation involved in separating current density into transverse and parallel components and the implications of the continuity theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the transition from a differential with respect to x to one with respect to x' within an integral, questioning the treatment of the current density and the denominator in this context.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered hints and guidance on how to approach the mathematical details, suggesting steps to clarify the manipulation of derivatives and integrals. There is acknowledgment of the complexity involved, and participants are exploring various interpretations of the mathematical process without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the implications of the conservation of charge theorem and its role in the derivation, as well as the assumptions made regarding the behavior of integrals at infinity.

mingshey
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Jackson("Classical Electrodynamics", Ch.6)
uses the theorem of curl of curl to separate current density into transverse and parallel,
[tex]\vec J = \vec{J_p}+\vec{J_t}[/tex] to say,

[tex]\begin{align*}\vec{J}(\vec{x}) &= \int\vec{J}(\vec{x'})\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x'})d^{3}x'\\<br /> &= -{1\over{4\pi}}\int\vec{J}(\vec{x'})\nabla^2 \left({1\over|\vec{x}-\vec{x'}|}\right)d^{3}x'<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]
Since the del is about [tex]x[/tex] and independent of the integral variable,
[tex]\begin{align*}{}&=-{1\over{4\pi}}\nabla^2\int{\vec{J}(\vec{x'})<br /> \over|\vec{x}-\vec{x'}|}d^{3}x'<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]
And using the theorem
[tex]\nabla\times(\nabla\times\vec{A})=\nabla(\nabla\cdot\vec{A})-\nabla^2\vec{A}[/tex]

[tex]\begin{align*}\vec{J}(\vec{x}) &= <br /> {1\over{4\pi}}\nabla\times\nabla\times\int{\vec{J}(\vec{x'})<br /> \over|\vec{x}-\vec{x'}|}d^{3}x'-{1\over{4\pi}}\nabla\left(\nabla\cdot\int{\vec{J}(\vec{x'})<br /> \over|\vec{x}-\vec{x'}|}d^{3}x'\right)\end{align*}[/tex]
But here Jackson take some hidden procedure to get from the second term of ther right side
[tex]-{1\over{4\pi}}\nabla\left(\int{\nabla'\cdot\vec{J}(\vec{x'})<br /> \over|\vec{x}-\vec{x'}|}d^{3}x'\right)={1\over{4\pi}}\nabla\left(\int{\partial\rho(\vec{x'})/\partial t<br /> \over|\vec{x}-\vec{x'}|}d^{3}x'\right)[/tex]
to use the continuity theorem to get the term about a time derivative of charge density at [tex]x'[/tex].

And I cannot see how is the differential about [tex]x[/tex] changed into a differential about [tex]x'[/tex] and got inside the integral, and is only applied to the current density, but not the denominator.

Can somebody explain it for me? Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
He used the conservation of charge theorem thingy:

[tex]\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = - \nabla \cdot \vec{J}[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll give in some hints in words. If the magic behind Jackson's sleight of hand still remains elusive, I'll give some of the mathematical details.

1) Move the unprimed divergence into the integral.

2) Explicitly take the unprimed divergence of the integrand, so that no derivative symbols remain under the integral.

3) Note the symmetry between x and x', and also note that the product rule for primed coordinates gives that the integrand is the required final expression plus/minus a total primed divergence.

4) Use the divergence theorem (for primed coordinates) to turn this total divergence into a surface integral, and argue that the surface integral vanishes at infinity, and thus can be neglected.

Regards,
George
 
Thanks

Thanks, George.
I couldn't think of number 4).

Thanks to you Malleus, too, for your hand of help. It was the easy part but I diffused the point there. Sorry. ;)
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K