Griffiths Electrodynamics gradient of charge distribution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the gradient of charge distribution as presented in Griffiths’ Electrodynamics, specifically Equation 10.21. The participants clarify that the gradient involves a time-dependent term due to the retarded time, which necessitates the application of the chain rule. It is emphasized that while the gradient is typically spatial, the dependence on retarded time introduces additional complexity. The conversation confirms that the charge density p is indeed a function of both position and retarded time, validating the use of the chain rule in this context. Overall, the discussion highlights the intricate relationship between spatial and temporal variables in electrodynamics.
Sparky_
Messages
227
Reaction score
5
I do not understand the following from Griffiths’ Electrodynamics – page 424 Equation 10.21.

<br /> \nabla p = \dot{p} \nabla {tr} = …<br />

I’m not sure how much of this applies (I think my question is on the math) but p is the charge distribution, tr is the retarded time.

Is this an application of the chain rule?

With the gradient being a derivative with respect to spatial location (x,y,z), why is the time derivative showing up in the gradient? I initially want to say if something is dependent upon t but not on x, then its derivative with respect to x is zero.

The result looks like the chain rule applied – I don’t see why the time dependent portion shows up.

Can you help clear this up for me?

Thanks
Sparky_
 
Physics news on Phys.org
continuity equation?
 
I do not see it yet.

I see later on the same page

<br /> \nabla \dot{p} = \ddot{p} \nabla {tr} = …<br />

Can you explain further?

Somehow the gradient is giving an additional time derivative.

Thanks
Sparky_
 
\rho has arguments like this:
\rho (\vec{r}&#039;, t_r(\vec{r}, \vec{r}&#039;, t))

The gradient is being applied w.r.t to the coordinates of \vec{r} ( not \vec{r}&#039; which gets integrated away). The coordinates that we would be taking the derivative with respect to in order to obtain the gradient are only found in the parameters of t_r. So this result is from the chain rule. Here is one component of the gradient, for example.
(\nabla \rho)_x = \frac{\partial \rho (\vec{r}&#039;, t_r(x, y, z, \vec{r}&#039;, t))}{\partial x} = \dot{\rho}\frac{\partial t_r}{\partial x}
 
Oh I see, did he specify that the dot derivative is with respective to retarded time?
 
It won't matter. ##\partial _{t_{r}} = \frac{\partial t_{r}}{\partial t}\partial _{t} = \frac{\partial }{\partial t}(t - \frac{\mathfrak{r}}{c})\partial_{t} = \partial_{t}##.

Anyways, as noted above ##\rho = \rho(r',t_{r}) ## and ##r'## is no longer a variable after integration but ##t_{r} = t_{r}(t,x,y,z,r')## so ##\nabla \rho = \partial _{t_{r}}\rho \nabla t_{r} = \partial_{t}\rho \nabla t_{r}##. Not sure what that has to do with the conservation of 4-current (continuity equation) ##\partial_{a}j^{a} = 0##.
 
Last edited:
Thank you!

I went back in this section of the text and reread. I see that p (charge density) is specified p(r’, tr). That is actually the point of this topic (the nonstatic case).

You confirmed that this is an application of the chain rule and p is a function of position and tr.

Thank you for the help!
Sparky_
 
Back
Top