Magnetic Field of current carrying straight wire

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the magnetic field of a current-carrying straight wire using cylindrical coordinates. The user outlines their approach, expressing the magnetic vector potential and breaking it into two integrals based on wire length. They initially find the integrals complex but later apply the Biot-Savart law, which simplifies the process. The resulting expression for the magnetic field includes terms dependent on the wire's length and the position of the observation point. The user considers further simplification but decides to pause on this problem for now.
FrogPad
Messages
801
Reaction score
0
So I get a "cheat" sheet for my upcoming emag test. I would like to have a general expression for the magnetic field of a current carrying wire. Would someone let me know if I am on the right path here.

Lets say we have a section of a current carrying wire that has length L. Let's say there is a point P that is located at P(\bar r, \bar \phi, \bar z )

We will use cylindrical coordinates and denote the bottom of the wire as 0, and the top of the wire as L. Since we are in cylindrical coordinates, there will be no phi dependence, so the point can be expressed as: P(\bar r, 0, \bar z)

Thus, is my thought process correct here (I don't want to solve these integrals yet, if I am doing something wrong).

Recall:
\vec A = \frac{\mu_0 I}{4 \pi} \oint_{C'} \frac{\vec dl'}{R}

Thus, if we break the integral into two contours,
\vec A = \frac{\mu_0 I}{4 \pi} \left( \int_{C'_1} \frac{\vec dl'}{R_1} + \int_{C'_2} \frac{\vec dl'}{R_2} \right)

\int_{C'_1} \frac{\vec dl'}{R_1} = \int_{0}^{\bar z} \frac{\hat z dz'}{\sqrt{z'^2+\bar r^2}}
\int_{C'_2} \frac{\vec dl'}{R_2} = \int_{\bar z}^{L} \frac{\hat z dz'}{\sqrt{[(L-\bar z)-z']^2+\bar r^2}}

Now if I solve these two integrals and plug into \vec A and then get \vec B by \vec B = \nabla \times \vec A I should be all set right? (...I hope)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just use the law of Biot-Savart.
 
Meir Achuz said:
Just use the law of Biot-Savart.

Does that make the math any easier? I'll see what I can do with that, but it seems like it would be easier to do this way. Those integrals are lengthy though (I let Maple solve the more complex one).
 
Ok, I used the Biot-Savart law, and it was surprisingly easier. The derivation was long, so I will not post it unless someone wants to see it. I came up with the following expression though:

\vec B = \hat \phi \frac{\mu_0 I}{4 \pi \bar r} (\alpha + \beta)
\alpha = \frac{L - \bar z}{\sqrt{\bar r^2 + (\bar z - L)^2}}
\alpha = \frac{\bar z}{\sqrt{\bar r^2 + \bar z^2}}

Where the line is from 0 to L, and the point is located at P(\bar r, \bar phi, \bar z [/tex].<br /> <br /> I used the bar notation to represent constants. This expression could (and probably should) be cleaned up. Maybe taylor expand the sqrt expressions, or apply some type of simplification. I don&#039;t think it&#039;s beneficial for me to spend so much time on one problem, so I&#039;m just going to drop it for the time being. Thanks for the suggestion Meir Achuz.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top