Vector Potential of Magnetic Field: Why Set Divergence to 0?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the vector potential of the magnetic field, specifically addressing the condition of setting the divergence of the vector potential, A, to zero. Participants explore the mathematical and conceptual justifications for this condition within the context of electrodynamics and gauge freedom.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that any vector can be expressed as a combination of a scalar potential and a divergence-free vector potential, suggesting that the additional constraint on A allows for this representation.
  • Others argue that the divergence-free condition on A is a gauge fixing condition, which does not affect the physical magnetic field, as the magnetic field is defined by the curl of A.
  • A participant highlights that the magnetic field has no sources, implying that its divergence is zero everywhere, which is a foundational concept in magnetostatics.
  • Some contributions clarify that the original question pertains specifically to the vector potential, not the magnetic field itself, indicating a potential misunderstanding among participants.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of providing correct and comprehensible answers, noting that deviations from the original question can still contribute to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of certain remarks and the focus of the discussion, indicating that multiple competing interpretations of the original question exist. There is no consensus on the necessity or implications of setting the divergence of the vector potential to zero.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference mathematical principles such as the Helmholtz theorem and Gauss's law for magnetostatics, but the discussion remains open-ended regarding the implications of these principles for the vector potential.

somy
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
vector potential of magnetic field

Hi everyone.
I have a question about the vector potential of magnetic field, A:
we just set the divergance(A)=0 inorder to define the potential. I just wanted to know why we are allowed to do this.
Thanks a lot.
Somy :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is a mathematical fact that ANY vector [tex]\vec{v}[/tex] can be written as:
[tex]\vec{v}=\nabla\Phi+\nabla\times\vec{A},\nabla\cdot\vec{A}=0[/tex]
Here, [tex]\Phi[/tex] is the associated scalar potential, whereas [tex]\vec{A}[/tex] is the associated vector potential.

A hand-wavy argument for the allowance of the divergence-free condition on [tex]\vec{A}[/tex] is the following:
An arbitrary [tex]\vec{v}[/tex] has 3 free components, whereas an arbitrary scalar potential [tex]\Phi[/tex] plus an arbitrary vector [tex]\vec{A}[/tex] has 4 free components.
Hence, we should be able to express [tex]\vec{v}[/tex] in terms of [tex]\Phi,\vec{A}[/tex] by adding an additional constraint on [tex]\vec{A}[/tex]
(In addition to the 3 component equations, of course)
 
Last edited:
somy said:
Hi everyone.
I have a question about the vector potential of magnetic field, A:
we just set the divergance(A)=0 inorder to define the potential. I just wanted to know why we are allowed to do this.
Thanks a lot.
Somy :smile:

As in electrodynamics the fields are the important quantities and the potentials are only introduced to make life easier, you can do anything with A if it does not affect the fields. This is more or less the same situation as with the scalar potential V which can be altered with a constant because that does not change the electric field; this is called a 'gauge freedom'.

Why does adding a constant to V not alter the value of the electric field? Because the electric field is the gradient of the V and the gradient of a constant is zero. So if you call this constant v then:

[tex]\vec{E}=-\nabla (V+v)=-\nabla V[/tex] because [tex]\nabla v=0[/tex] with v a constant.

In the case of the magnetic field the relation between the vector potential and the magnetic field is given by:

[tex]\vec{B}=\nabla \times \vec{A}[/tex]

And you can look this up if you can't recall it but the curl of a gradient is zero. This is a mathematical fact just like the divergence of a constant is zero. So adding a gradient to A does not effect the magnetic field. Let's call this gradient [itex]\nabla a[/itex] and the original vector potential (without the extra gradient added) [itex]\vec{A}_0[/itex] then:

[tex]\nabla \cdot \vec{A} = \nabla \cdot \vec{A}_0 + \nabla^2 a[/tex]

And we can choose the value of the gradient such that the divergence of A vanishes without changing the magnetic field (i.e. by choosing [itex]\nabla^2 a= -\nabla \cdot \vec{A}_0[/itex])
 
The magnetic field has no sources, so its diverges is zero everywhere. If it had a divergence within any closed reason it would have a "magnetic charge" somewhere in there.
 
selfAdjoint said:
The magnetic field has no sources, so its diverges is zero everywhere. If it had a divergence within any closed reason it would have a "magnetic charge" somewhere in there.

The question is about the magnetic vector potential, not the magnetic field...
 
Thank you da willem,
The answer was clear and useful.
Somy
 
arildno said:
It is a mathematical fact that ANY vector [tex]\vec{v}[/tex] can be written as:
[tex]\vec{v}=\nabla\Phi+\nabla\times\vec{A},\nabla\cdot\vec{A}=0[/tex]
Here, [tex]\Phi[/tex] is the associated scalar potential, whereas [tex]\vec{A}[/tex] is the associated vector potential.

A hand-wavy argument for the allowance of the divergence-free condition on [tex]\vec{A}[/tex] is the following:
An arbitrary [tex]\vec{v}[/tex] has 3 free components, whereas an arbitrary scalar potential [tex]\Phi[/tex] plus an arbitrary vector [tex]\vec{A}[/tex] has 4 free components.
Hence, we should be able to express [tex]\vec{v}[/tex] in terms of [tex]\Phi,\vec{A}[/tex] by adding an additional constraint on [tex]\vec{A}[/tex]
(In addition to the 3 component equations, of course)

I think this is a more convincing proof and it is quite general,since it uses the Helmholtz theorem which is valid vor any vector field defined on [tex]R^3[/tex].
And i think selfAdjoint's remark is a correct one,since it's Gauss's law for magnetistatics that u exploit in setting [tex]\vec{B}=\nabla \times \vec{A}[/tex]
And the condition you invoked is A GAUGE FIXING CONDITION which is actually a supplimentary first class constraint imposed at Hamiltonian level,in order to make the Legendre transformation invertible...Why does it have that form??Simply,because it is chosen to resemble the secondary first class constraint of the em field which is of course:[tex]-\nabla\vec\Pi=0[/tex].
 
dextercioby said:
And i think selfAdjoint's remark is a correct one,since it's Gauss's law for magnetistatics that u exploit in setting [tex]\vec{B}=\nabla \times \vec{A}[/tex]

I think it is obvious SelfAdjoint misunderstood the question, as he talks about the divergence of the magnetic field and not the divergence of the magnetic vector potential. His remark is correct, but not very appropriate in this thread...
 
I think the relevance and the purpose of such a forum is to give people as much as possible correct answers and to do that in a comprehendable way.It's maybe so that some of us,if not all,missinterpret the original questions and end up discussing other issues.
And i strongly believe that's not a sin.I therefore leave it to the (presumably) interested reader to see whether my post "is appropriate" in that thread.
 
  • #10
Ok, maybe you're right. I as well don't think it is a sin to deviate from the original question, overall this is a good thing. But I just pointed out that the sender was referring to something else so the original post-er would not be confused... :smile:
 

Similar threads

Graduate Is the Vector Potential of a Toroid Nonzero Outside the Toroid?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
High School Conceptually understanding change in potential energy with 0 net work
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad What is the zero point for Potential Energy and how to find it from integral limits?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate What Are the Differences Between These Vector Potential Formulas?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad What causes potential difference in the conductor?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Longitudinal waves and vector potentials.
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad How to use geometrical symmetries -- general advice? (Vector potential)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Divergence of a position vector in spherical coordinates
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Undergrad Why the change in potential energy is the same in all cases?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Graduate EM: Vector potential vs. Field tensor: Which is fundamental?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K