Can \(\vec{E} = E_0 \cdot (-y,x, z)\) Be an Electrostatic Field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter henrybrent
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electromagnetism
henrybrent
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
[Mentor's note: this thread was originally posted in a non-homework forum, therefore it does not have the homework template.]

------------

I have a question which is:Let \vec{E} = E_0 \cdot (-y,x, z) Can \vec{E} be an electrostatic field? if yes, find the charge density which generates this field. If not, find the magnetic field which generates itand,

Let \vec{E} = E_0 \cdot \vec{r} ) Can \vec{E} be an electrostatic field? if yes, find the charge density which generates this field. If not, find the magnetic field which generates itI have no idea where to start, any help is appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
An electrostatic field, is an electric field for which we can find an scalar field(a function of spatial coordinates)\phi such that \vec E=-\vec \nabla \phi. Now if I take the curl of this equation, I get \vec \nabla \times \vec E=0(because the curl of the gradient of a scalar field is always zero). So you should see whether the curl of the given electric fields are zero or not.
 
I am not sure how to take curl of the electric fields, sorry.

I am not sure what E_0 denotes? is that merely a constant?
 
<br /> \vec \nabla \times \vec E=\vec \nabla \times (E_x,E_y,E_z)=(\frac{\partial E_z}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial E_y}{\partial z})\hat x+(\frac{\partial E_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial E_z}{\partial x})\hat y+(\frac{\partial E_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial E_x}{\partial y})\hat z<br />
And E_0 is only a constant.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top