B Effects of a discovery of the monopole

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether magnetic fields are conservative or non-conservative, with a focus on the implications of magnetic monopoles. Participants emphasize that the determination of a field's conservativeness is based on the curl of the field, where a zero curl indicates a conservative field. They clarify that a non-zero curl suggests path dependence, thus indicating a non-conservative field. The conversation also touches on how the existence of magnetic monopoles could potentially alter the classification of magnetic fields. Ultimately, understanding the curl is essential for assessing the nature of magnetic fields.
Somali_Physicist
Messages
117
Reaction score
13
I guess i have two questions , is the magnetic field conservative or non-conservative.As far as i can see just looking at a magnetic field we have a curved path hence it wouldn't be conservative, however many textbooks assume it is.Is there something I am not seeing here?

Furthermore would monopoles change the category such a field sits in.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Somali_Physicist said:
I guess i have two questions , is the magnetic field conservative or non-conservative.As far as i can see just looking at a magnetic field we have a curved path hence it wouldn't be conservative, however many textbooks assume it is.Is there something I am not seeing here?

This is not a question that is open for debate, or something that you can judge simply by "looking". There IS a clear and direct TEST of any field for it to be "conservative". Find the curl of this field. Then ask yourself : "What does it mean if the curl of this field is zero, and what does it mean if the curl of this field is not zero?"

Furthermore would monopoles change the category such a field sits in.

One step at a time. Do the first one first.

Zz.
 
Well, after you've read about

-path independence of line integrals over vector fields
-existence of a scalar potential of a vector field and this path independence
-local version: or in other words, what this has to do with the operation curl
-and what Poincare's Lemma tells you

go ahead with a nice mind-boggling example, the potential vortex
$$\vec{V}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{x_1^2+x_2^2} \begin{pmatrix} -x_2 \\ x_1 \\0 \end{pmatrix}$$
and calculate ##\text{curl} \vec{V}## and then the line integral along an arbitrary circle parallel to the ##x_1##-##x_2##-plane with center on the ##x_3## axis. Hint: cylinder coordinates can in this case be both a good idea and adding even more to the confusion, but it's really a good kind of confusion.
 
ZapperZ said:
This is not a question that is open for debate, or something that you can judge simply by "looking". There IS a clear and direct TEST of any field for it to be "conservative". Find the curl of this field. Then ask yourself : "What does it mean if the curl of this field is zero, and what does it mean if the curl of this field is not zero?"
One step at a time. Do the first one first.
[
Zz.
Curl of a field is zero implies that there is no circulation .It also means that such a vector is a gradient of some scalar potential. I guess you could also see along a closed curve you would always have zero work done.As you have to apply same work to get to a point.Wikipedia defines it as something that only depends on position not path taken.

Ok so for a magnetic field:
∫B.dl = μ0∫J.dA
by stokes theorem:
∫(∇xB).da = ∫μ0J.dA
therefore:
∇xB = μ0J
∇xB =0 only if J = 0

If the curl of a vector field isn't zero than it is path dependent and hence not a gradient of a scalar potential.That would imply its not zero, so not a conservative vector field?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top