Deriving the Claim: \sin^2\theta/r Conservation in Pulsar Gamma-Ray Emission

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the conservation of the quantity \sin^2\theta/r along dipolar magnetic field lines in pulsar gamma-ray emission. To derive this claim, it is suggested to take the gradient of c and demonstrate its perpendicularity to the magnetic field B, indicating that c remains constant along the field lines. Clarification is provided that if the gradient of a quantity is perpendicular to a field, it implies that the quantity does not change in the direction of that field. Participants inquire about the types of texts that cover these derivations, with vector analysis and electromagnetism being recommended. Understanding this concept is essential for studying the mechanisms behind gamma-ray emissions from pulsars.
rbwang1225
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
When I study the mechanism of gamma-ray emission from pulsars, I got a statement saying that the quantity \sin^2\theta/r is conserved along any dipolar magnetic field line.

Does anybody know how to derive this claim?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The field of a magnetic dipole is B = (m/r3)(3r(r·z) - z) where r, z are unit vectors.

Let c = sin2Θ/r = (r2 - z2)/r3. Take the gradient of c and show that it is perpendicular to B. This shows that the lines c = const are the magnetic lines of force.
 
Bill_K said:
The field of a magnetic dipole is B = (m/r3)(3r(r·z) - z) where r, z are unit vectors.

Let c = sin2Θ/r = (r2 - z2)/r3. Take the gradient of c and show that it is perpendicular to B. This shows that the lines c = const are the magnetic lines of force.

Sorry, I do not understand why the gradient of c is perpendicular to B means that the lines c = const are the magnetic lines of force. And is c a constant?

Regards
 
rbwang1225 said:
Sorry, I do not understand why the gradient of c is perpendicular to B means that the lines c = const are the magnetic lines of force. And is c a constant?

Regards

If the gradient, i.e. the "change" of some quantity is perpendicular to some other field, it means that the quantity has no change in the direction of the field. It is therefore constant along the lines of that field.
 
Wow! I got it, but could you tell me what kind of text have this kind of derivations? calculus? or vector analysis?

Thanks!
 
rbwang1225 said:
Wow! I got it, but could you tell me what kind of text have this kind of derivations? calculus? or vector analysis?

Thanks!

It should be covered in any introduction to vector analysis. Texts on electromagnetism might also help.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top