Deriving Ampere's law from the Biot-Savart law

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving Ampere's law from the Biot-Savart law, focusing on the mathematical manipulation of integrals involving magnetic fields and current densities. Participants are exploring the implications of integrating over specific regions in relation to the presence of current distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the implications of integrating over all space versus only the region containing current, questioning why the integral would yield different results based on the location of the point of interest relative to the current distribution.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide insights into the nature of the problem, noting that the original poster's reasoning is valid in a special case but may not apply universally. There is acknowledgment that the curl of the magnetic field is related to the current density at the point of interest, regardless of whether that point lies inside or outside the current distribution.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the delta function in the context of the integral and the necessity of integrating over the entire space when deriving Ampere's law, particularly in relation to stationary currents.

fayled
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
If we write the Biot Savart law as
B(r)=μ0/4π∫(J(r')xn/n2)dV'
where B is the magnetic field which depends on r=(x,y,z), a fixed point, J is the volume current density depending on r'=(x',y',z'), and n=r-r', a vector from the volume element dV' at r' to the point r. Note we integrate over the primed coordinates as J, the source of the current varies with these.

Then take the curl, making use of curl(AxB)=A(.B)+(B.)A-(A.)B-B(.A), and noting .J=0 (it depends on the primed coordinates) and that (n/n2.)J=0 for the same reason, we get
xB0/4π∫J(.n/n2)dV'-μ0/4π∫(J.)n/n2dV'.

Now term two can be shown to integrate to zero, which I understand (incidentally, the book says this second term is integrated over a volume enclosing all current, as I suspected - this is related to my problem below), but I have a problem with term 1. We get
xB0/4π∫J(.n/n2)dV'
and .n/n2=4πδ3(r-r'). So
xB0/4π∫4πJ(r'3(r-r')dV'
xB0J(r'3(r-r')dV'
Now according to my book, this reduces to
xB0J(r), which makes sense in a way because we can say
xB0J(r3(r-r')dV'
because only the value of J at the 'spike' is actually useful anyway. This is constant so
xB0J(r)∫δ3(r-r')dV' and then this integral is simply one giving the desired result.

However, we're integrating over (x',y',z') and so varying r', keeping r fixed. As our integral only need cover all of our current, and r could be outside of our current distribution, (according to my brain) we need not even integrate over the 'spike' of the delta function at r'=r, which makes the integral zero.

What is it I am misunderstanding? Thanks.

Edit: If the answer is something along the lines of 'we may as well integrate over all space because there's no current anywhere else anyway', I ask, if there's no current anywhere else anyway, why do we get two different answers by integrating/not integrating over all space.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are not wrong!

fayled said:
As our integral only need cover all of our current, and r could be outside of our current distribution, (according to my brain) we need not even integrate over the 'spike' of the delta function at r'=r, which makes the integral zero.
You are not wrong... just considering a special case. IF you pick a point outside the current distribution the curl of B is zero as your mathematical intuition indicates. You are deriving Ampere's law -after all- which states that the curl of B at a point is proportional to the current density at that point. But r need not be outside the current distribution in which case you DO need to integrate over the spike and wherein B and J are not zero but still proportional.

All is right with the world.
 
jambaugh said:
You are not wrong... just considering a special case. IF you pick a point outside the current distribution the curl of B is zero as your mathematical intuition indicates. You are deriving Ampere's law -after all- which states that the curl of B at a point is proportional to the current density at that point. But r need not be outside the current distribution in which case you DO need to integrate over the spike and wherein B and J are not zero but still proportional.

All is right with the world.

Oh dear, that is pretty obvious now :redface: Thankyou :)
 
Well, and if \vec{r} is at a point outside the region where an electric current is flowing, your equation is correct too (for stationary currents only, of course!), because there \vec{j}(\vec{r})=0. The local Maxwell Equations are always right!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K