Ampere's Law with Maxwell's correction is equivelant to Ampere's Law?

AI Thread Summary
Ampere's Law with Maxwell's correction is equivalent to the Biot-Savart Law under specific conditions, primarily when considering stationary fields where the displacement current is negligible. The discussion highlights that Biot-Savart applies to magnetostatic scenarios, leading to the conclusion that the magnetic field can be expressed as a curl of a vector potential. By applying the Coulomb gauge, the relationship between the vector potential and current density is established, resulting in a solution that mirrors electrostatics. This approach ultimately derives the Biot-Savart Law from Ampere's Law, confirming their equivalence in the appropriate context. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical foundations that connect these fundamental laws of electromagnetism.
Question Man
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Is it true that Ampere's Law with Maxwell's correction is equivelant to Biot-Savart Law?
Under what assumptions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Biot-Savart holds for stationary fields, where Maxwell's displacement current doesn't play a role, i.e., you have the two magnetostatic equations (here for simplicity I neglect medium effects, i.e., use the vacuum equations in Heaviside-Lorentz units)

\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}=\frac{\vec{j}}{c}, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0.

From the second equation, which says that there are no magnetic charges, we see that the magnetic field is a pure solenoidal field, i.e., there is a vector potential, \vec{A} such that

\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}.

For a given magnetic field, the vector potential is only determined up to the gradient of a scalar field, and thus we can choose a constraint on the potential. In the so called Coulomb gauge one assumes

\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}=0.

Plugging now this ansatz into the first equation, which is Ampere's Law, we get (in Cartesian coordinates!)

\vec{\nabla} \times (\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A})=\vec{\nabla} (\vec{\nabla} <br /> \cdot \vec{A})-\Delta \vec{A}=-\Delta \vec{A}=\frac{\vec{j}}{c}.

Now this looks like the equation of electrostatics for each Cartesian component of the vector potential. From this we get immediately the solution in terms of the Green's function of the Laplacian:

\vec{A}(\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}&#039; \frac{\vec{j}(\vec{x}&#039;)}{4 \pi c |\vec{x}-\vec{x}&#039;|}.

Taking the curl of this solution, directly yields the Biot-Savart Law,

\vec{B}(\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}&#039; \vec{j}(\vec{x}&#039;) \times \frac{\vec{x}-\vec{x}&#039;}{4 \pi c |\vec{x}-\vec{x}&#039;|^3} .
 
Muchas Gracias!
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top