Can magnetic fields have any geometry we want?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the possibility of creating magnetic fields with arbitrary geometries using permanent magnets and electromagnets. Participants explore whether specific geometries, such as cylindrical or swirling magnetic fields, can be achieved and the limitations imposed by Maxwell's equations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if magnetic fields can have any geometry or if there are limitations based on the types of magnets used.
  • Another participant asserts that magnetic fields must be divergence-free according to Maxwell's equations, suggesting a fundamental limitation.
  • Some participants propose that while divergence-free fields cannot achieve non-zero divergence, it may be possible to approximate any field distribution closely with enough surrounding magnets.
  • A counterpoint is raised that the notion of "arbitrarily close" is flawed, as divergence-free fields cannot approach fields with non-zero divergence.
  • Further discussion introduces the idea of "engineering approximations," where errors can be confined to a small region, likening it to the Gibbs phenomenon in signal approximation.
  • Another participant emphasizes that while one can minimize errors in a localized region, divergence-free fields cannot serve as a good approximation for fields with non-zero divergence in a broader sense.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the feasibility of approximating non-zero divergence fields with divergence-free fields. There is no consensus on the definitions of "closeness" or the implications of engineering approximations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations imposed by Maxwell's equations and the varying interpretations of mathematical proximity in the context of magnetic field geometries.

physea
Messages
211
Reaction score
3
Is it possible to have a magnetic field of a any geometry we want, or there are only few types of geometries that can be achieved with permanent magnets and electromagnets? If the former, how do we produce a magnetic field of specific geometry? For example, can the magnetic field be cylindrical or can it be swirl? If the latter, can I see what are the available geometries of all the possible magnetic fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. By Maxwell's equations the magnetic field must be divergence free.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rumborak
That said, I would think that in a limited space you should be able to approximate any field distribution arbitrarily closely, with enough surrounding magnets.
 
rumborak said:
That said, I would think that in a limited space you should be able to approximate any field distribution arbitrarily closely, with enough surrounding magnets.
No. This fails due to your "arbitrarily closely". This cannot be true based on post #2. You cannot come arbitrarily close to a field with non-zero divergence using just divergence free fields.
 
That depends on the definition of "close". True, of course you will never have a non-zero divergence, but if the incoming field lines are bundled very close together and then fan out radially, you are very close to emulating non-zero divergence.
 
rumborak said:
That depends on the definition of "close". True, of course you will never have a non-zero divergence, but if the incoming field lines are bundled very close together and then fan out radially, you are very close to emulating non-zero divergence.
No you are not. The field will still have exactly zero divergence - just like the electric field of a point charge away from the point charge. As long as your definition of "close" is reasonable, you will always be able to find a field with non-zero divergence that is closer to the target field (with non-zero divergence) than any divergence free field and so you cannot get arbitrarily close.

If you are thinking of emulating a monopole field in some finite region that excludes the pole - that field is divergence free in that region.
 
I am suggesting an "engineering approximation" here, where you try to confine the errors to an arbitrarily small region of space.

It's the same as with the Gibbs phenomenon when approximating a signal with sine waves. You will never get rid of the overshoot because it is a mathematical consequence, but if your definition of "close" is "minimize the amount of space with errors", you can get arbitrarily close.
 
rumborak said:
I am suggesting an "engineering approximation" here, where you try to confine the errors to an arbitrarily small region of space.

It's the same as with the Gibbs phenomenon when approximating a signal with sine waves. You will never get rid of the overshoot because it is a mathematical consequence, but if your definition of "close" is "minimize the amount of space with errors", you can get arbitrarily close.
In the case of Gibbs' phenomenon, you will not be able to find a function that better approximates the target function than all superpositions of sine waves because the sine waves form a dense basis and closeness here has a definite meaning in terms of the ##L^2## norm. This stands in stark contrast to the case of a divergence free field approximating a field with non-zero divergence.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K