Definition of magnetic moments and torques

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of magnetic moments and torques, particularly in the context of rectangular and arbitrary current loops with constant current. Participants explore the relationship between magnetic moment and torque, and the implications of a factor of one-half in the definition of magnetic moment.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a generalization of the torque on arbitrary current loops, suggesting a definition for magnetic moment as \vec m = I\oint \vec r \times \vec dl.
  • Another participant points out that the factor of one-half in the definition of magnetic moment is necessary to calculate the area correctly when considering circular loops.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the relationship between torque and the factor of one-half, referencing a derivation that leads to a potential contradiction regarding vector identities.
  • One participant cautions that equal integrals do not imply the integrated functions are the same and emphasizes the importance of vector product identities.
  • A later reply acknowledges the mistake in the initial reasoning regarding the vector product, indicating that the factor of one-half is indeed necessary for the correct formulation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of the factor of one-half in the definition of magnetic moment, as there is ongoing debate about its implications and the correctness of the initial expressions for torque.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the vector identities used in the discussion, particularly concerning the relationships between torque, magnetic moment, and area calculations.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
When one finds the torque on a rectangular current loop one finds that it's equal to

\vec m \times \vec B

where m is the magnetic moment of the loop. I want to generalize this to arbirary current loops with constant current and I found that the torque would be equal to

\left(I\oint \vec r \times \vec dl\right) \times \vec B

so I would think it would be natural to define

\vec m =I\oint \vec r \times \vec dl

for these current loops. However when it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment" I find that the magnetic moment is defined as

\vec m =\frac{1}{2} I\oint \vec r \times \vec dl.

Where does this factor of a half come into the picture? Is'nt 'moments' supposed to be that what generates torques and not just be proportional to it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Look closely at your formula, does it give the right area when you take for example a circle? (The factor 1/2 is needed to calculate the area correctly)
 
That's true. But I do not want the right area, just the right torque. I must admit I am a bit confused. I just saw a derivation of a statement that

\vec r \times (d\vec r \times \vec B) = \frac{1}{2} \left( d\left[ \vec r \times ( \vec r \times \vec B\right] - \vec B \times ( \vec r \times d \vec r ) \right)

Which would indeed solve the problem. But does this then imply that

\oint \vec r \times (d\vec r \times \vec B) = \frac{1}{2} \oint \left( d\left[ \vec r \times ( \vec r \times \vec B\right] - \vec B \times ( \vec r \times d \vec r ) \right) = \frac{1}{2} (\oint \vec r \times d \vec r) \times \vec B?

if so that would imply that

\oint \vec r \times ( d \vec r \times \vec B ) - \frac{1}2 (\vec r \times d \vec r) \times \vec B = 0

and can we not then conclude that

\vec r \times ( d \vec r \times \vec B ) = \frac{1}2 (\vec r \times d \vec r) \times \vec B?

which seems to be a contradiction when I would think that

\vec A \times ( \vec B \times \vec C) = (\vec A \times \vec B) \times \vec C.

I would really appreciate if someone could enligthen me.
 
When two integrals are the same, that does not necessarily mean the integrated functions are the same. Also, in general Ax(BxC) is not equal to (AxB)xC, always watch out with that. (these are just general remarks)

How did you arrive at your first expression for the torque? (in post #1)

edit: I was a little too fast with this reply, I should add that in this case of course you need the factor 1/2 to get to the right answer, and therefore you will need some identity ;). I suspect you (mis)used that Ax(BxC) = (AxB)xC for your first result?
 
Last edited:
You're right! That exactly what I did. And that solves my problem. Thank you! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
858
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K