Are Maxwell's Equations More Complex Than We Thought?

AI Thread Summary
Maxwell's equations are often presented in various forms, leading to confusion about their complexity. The equation curl E = -dB/dt is commonly used, but an alternative form involving complex numbers, curl E(r,t) = j*omega*u0*H(r,t), raises questions about the implications for dB/dt. The discussion highlights the assumptions made when solving these equations, specifically the separation of spatial and temporal components and the use of oscillatory functions. The use of 'j' instead of 'i' in electrical engineering is clarified, as 'i' denotes current density. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the nuanced understanding required to grasp the full implications of Maxwell's equations.
lichen
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Easy question for those who know, I expect. It would help me understand though.

Generally, wherever I look for information the equation

curl E = - dB/dt

is given, but in some areas I see the equation

curl E(r,t) = j*omega*u0*H(r,t)

where j is the imaginary unit, omega is angular freq., u0 is permeability of free space.

B=u0*H so that's ok, but does this imply that dB/dt = -j*omega*B ?

Also, curl H(r,t) = -j*omega*e0*e*E(r,t) is given where e0 is permittivity of free space, e is a dielectric tensor. I assume this can be explained in the same way.

I'm missing a chunk of understanding as you probably notice ;)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually, when trying to write down solutions to Mawell's equations, people assume two things about the field:

1) The spatial part and the temporal part can be separated: E(r,t) = R(r)T(t).
2) The temporal part can be written as T(t) = Ae^{i \omega t}.

The first assumption is fairly basic to solving differential equations, and separable functions are a very important class of solutions- I can't give a consise reason why, but for now, it makes it possible to analytically solve the equations.

The second assumption just means that the temperal part oscillates like a sine wave. It's written that way to be more general (and actually, the full expression is T(t) = Ae^{i \omega t} + BAe^{-i \omega t} ). There's good reasons for this assumption as well, which I don't need to get into now.

Anyhow, hopefully you can see where the j\omega comes from now- electrical engineers use 'j' instead of 'i' becasue 'i' is current density.

The other part is the conversion of E to D, and B to H. But you seem to have a handle on that part.
 
Ah, yes I see now.

Thanks very much!
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top