Calculating Magnetic Field Lines

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on calculating magnetic field lines associated with an arbitrary current distribution \(\vec{J}\) and the corresponding magnetic field \(\vec{H}\). Participants explore methods for determining the geometry of field lines, considering both source-free regions and regions with sources, and the implications of dimensionality on the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the best method to calculate field lines of \(\vec{H}\) given the equations \(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{H} = \vec{J}\) and \(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{H} = 0\), questioning whether to first calculate \(\vec{H}\) or to derive field line information directly from the equations.
  • Another participant suggests that in a source-free region, Laplace's equation can be used to define an effective magnetic scalar potential, which allows for the use of equipotential lines and streamlines analogous to electrostatics, simplifying the problem.
  • A later reply expresses a need to consider the source region as well, indicating that the simpler approach may not be applicable in that case.
  • One participant states that working with the vector potential is typically necessary in source regions, noting that complexity will depend on the source geometry and boundary conditions.
  • Another participant reiterates the initial question, emphasizing that their known method requires calculating the magnetic field first, leading to differential equations for the field lines in both Cartesian and spherical coordinates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the methods for calculating magnetic field lines, with some advocating for the use of scalar potentials in source-free regions while others highlight the necessity of vector potentials in regions with sources. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach for cases involving sources.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the dimensionality of the problem and the complexity introduced by the source geometry and boundary conditions, which are not fully resolved in the discussion.

thegreenlaser
Messages
524
Reaction score
17
I guess this is maybe more of a vector calculus question, but here it goes. Say I have an arbitrary current distribution [itex]\vec{J}[/itex] with the corresponding magnetic field given by
[tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{H} = \vec{J}[/tex]
[tex]\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{H} = 0[/tex]
What is the best way to calculate the field/flow lines of [itex]\vec{H}[/itex] (contours to which [itex]\vec{H}[/itex] is always tangent)? Do I need to calculate the magnetic field and then find the field lines from that, or is there an easier way to directly extract information about the geometry of the field lines from the equations above if I don't care about the magnitude of the magnetic field?

Edit: If it makes things easier, I'd still be interested to see the answer to this question with the added assumption that everything is uniform in the z-direction and [itex]\vec{J}[/itex] only has a z component (i.e. the magnetic field is 2D: it has no z-dependence and no z-component)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you want H in a source-free region (no currents or magnetization), then Laplace's equation holds and you can define an effective magnetic scalar potential that is analogous to the usual electric potential. Equipotential lines and streamlines then play the same role as in electrostatics problems: you get orthogonal potential lines and field lines. This is by far the easiest approach.

Since J has only a z component, the problem is two-dimensional problem, further simplifying it.
 
marcusl said:
If you want H in a source-free region (no currents or magnetization), then Laplace's equation holds and you can define an effective magnetic scalar potential that is analogous to the usual electric potential. Equipotential lines and streamlines then play the same role as in electrostatics problems: you get orthogonal potential lines and field lines. This is by far the easiest approach.

Since J has only a z component, the problem is two-dimensional problem, further simplifying it.

That does make sense, but unfortunately I do care about being able to do it inside the source region as well. Is there any simple technique there?
 
No, nothing simple. You typically work with the vector potential. Complexity will depend on the source geometry and boundary conditions.
 
thegreenlaser said:
I guess this is maybe more of a vector calculus question, but here it goes. Say I have an arbitrary current distribution [itex]\vec{J}[/itex] with the corresponding magnetic field given by
[tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{H} = \vec{J}[/tex]
[tex]\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{H} = 0[/tex]
What is the best way to calculate the field/flow lines of [itex]\vec{H}[/itex] (contours to which [itex]\vec{H}[/itex] is always tangent)? Do I need to calculate the magnetic field and then find the field lines from that, or is there an easier way to directly extract information about the geometry of the field lines from the equations above if I don't care about the magnitude of the magnetic field?

The way I know how to do this requires you to calculate the field first. Once you know [itex]\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{r})[/itex]then you just construct the equations for the field lines. Let [itex]d\mathbf{r}[/itex] be a differential vector parallel to the magnetic field; then we know [itex]d\mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{H} = 0[/itex]. This yields differential equations for the field lines. For example, in Cartesian coordinates this yields
[tex] \frac{dx}{H_x} = \frac{dy}{H_y} =\frac{dz}{H_z}[/tex]
and in spherical coordinates this is
[tex] \frac{dr}{H_r} = \frac{rd\theta}{H_\theta} =\frac{r \sin\theta d\phi}{H_\phi}[/tex]
jason
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Fb.Researcher

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K