Differential Form of Gauss's Law

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between the differential and integral forms of Maxwell's equations, particularly in relation to divergence. The differential form provides a local perspective on how a field behaves at a point, indicating sources or sinks within the field, while the integral form examines the behavior over a region. The divergence operator quantifies how much a vector field diverges from a point, with implications for electric and magnetic fields. Both forms describe the same physical phenomena, and the choice between them depends on the specific problem being addressed. Understanding the divergence theorem clarifies the relationship between these two forms, highlighting their equivalence.
Feldoh
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
3
Could someone try and explain with the differential form means? I've only taken p to calculus 2 so I'm not really sure what divergence in the sense of this equation means. Also what is the difference in the two. I mean the integral form looks at an electric field and charge over a region, so what does the differential form represent?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Feldoh said:
Could someone try and explain with the differential form means? I've only taken p to calculus 2 so I'm not really sure what divergence in the sense of this equation means. Also what is the difference in the two. I mean the integral form looks at an electric field and charge over a region, so what does the differential form represent?

Always in physics we use to write equation in differential form because they explain how it is the behavior of a system locally...
the div operator acting on a vector field suggest us if the field is divergenceless (solenoidal) or not. Physically this mean that it counts the source or sink of the field. the abjective soleinoidal come from the magnetic field B, in fact we know that divB=0!

To obtain the integral equation we just use the divergence theorem, and we obtain the relation with the flux of the field trough a surface...

i think you can find many things on wiki or somewhere else that explain things better than me.

regards
marco
 
The differential forms of Maxwell's equations, like Gauss's Law help tell us how a field behaves at a point, which the integral forms cannot tell us about. Other than this one difference, they describe the same physical phenomena. Whether you use one form or another depends on how useful that form is to the problem your working on.

The divergence is just a vector derivative:

\nabla\cdot\vec{v}= \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z} In fact, just as there are two ways to multiply vectors (dot and cross products), there are two ways to differentiate them. You can take a vector's divergence, or it's curl. Both are derivatives, but they tell you different things. The divergence tells you how much the vector field diverges from a point, i.e. the electric field from a positive point charge had a high divergence. (It always points away from the source of the field. In other words, it diverges from that point.) On the other hand, the magnetic field of an infinite current-carrying wire, which loops around the wire has zero divergence (the field lines are always the same distance from the wire), but they have a high curl (the field lines "curl" back on themselves.)
 
Last edited:
The differential form and the integral form are the same thing. Once you learn the divergence theorem it will be plain as daylight.

Edit: Of course the differential form is much more pretty, and describes what is happening as a point, as others already mentioned.
 
Last edited:
You find the differential form of Maxwell's equatons prettier? I find the integral forms easier to understand and more enlightening.
 
Defennnder said:
You find the differential form of Maxwell's equatons prettier? I find the integral forms easier to understand and more enlightening.

think of the differential form as exactly the same as the integral form, but with the milli-smidgen of volume of the little cube being arbitrarily small. it's the same thing.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Hello! I would like to apply an electric field of 100 V/cm, along the z-axis (defined by an externally applied DC field), with a frequency of 100 MHz at the location of an atomic cloud (everything is inside ultra high vacuum). We can assume that the atoms are located in a volume with a diameter of 50 microns (e.g. in an optical dipole trap). However, I need to minimize any induced magnetic field along the z-axis at 100 MHz as much as possible (ideally at the nano Gauss level or below). Does...
Back
Top