Electrodynamics: Derivatives involving Retarded-Time

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the mathematical confusion related to retarded time in electrodynamics, specifically the expression for retarded time and its implications for derivatives. The user attempts to relate the derivatives of field coordinates and source coordinates, questioning the validity of their approach. A key point raised is that the coordinates should be treated as independent variables when proving the identity involving the gradient of 1/R. The misunderstanding lies in incorrectly assuming a dependency between the field and source coordinates. The clarification emphasizes the independence of these variables in the context of the identity.
WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
14
Hi all,

I have ran into some mathematical confusion when studying the aforementioned topic. The expression for retarded time is given as
$$t_R = t - R/c$$
##R = | \vec{r} - \vec{r'} |##, where ##\vec{r}## represents the point of evaluation and ##\vec{r'}## represents the source position. I rewrite the above equation into
$$x_i = x'_i + \text{terms independent of x' and x}$$
where ##x_i## is a cartesian coordinate. If I had the following derivative ##\partial _{x_i}##, could I then say this?
$$\partial _{x_i} = \frac{ \partial }{ \partial x'_i} \frac{ \partial x'_i}{ \partial x_i} = \partial _{x'_i}$$

If so, there is the following identity
$$\nabla(1/R) = - \nabla ' (1/R)$$
where the prime means that the derivative is with respect to source coordinates ##x' _i##

Suppose I start from the RHS:
$$\nabla (1/R) = \sum_i \partial_ {x_i} (\frac{1}{R}) \hat{x_i} = \sum_i \partial_ {x' _i} (\frac{1}{R}) \hat{x_i} = \nabla' (1/R)$$

which is clearly wrong. What have I done wrongly?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your mistake is that you consider the dependency equation ##x_i=x'_i+C## between the field coordinates and the source coordinates but there can be no such dependency, we treat all field variables ##x_i## and all source variable ##x'_i## as independent from each other when proving the identity ##\nabla (1/R)=-\nabla'(1/R)##.
 
  • Like
Likes WWCY and anorlunda
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top