Finding A for B Using Gradient and Curl

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zhivago
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curl Gradient
Click For Summary
To find vector field A from B defined as B = ∇ × A, one can utilize Helmholtz's Theorem, which requires specifying divergence and curl conditions along with boundary conditions. For non-uniform magnetic fields, ensuring that div B = 0 is crucial, as it validates the magnetic field's legitimacy. The discussion highlights the importance of integrating and applying the curl operation, while also noting the presence of a constant of integration, phi, which can adjust A. Numerical algorithms and references for further reading were requested, emphasizing the need for a general approach to tackle the problem. Understanding these principles is essential for accurately deriving A from B in various scenarios.
Zhivago
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone!

Having a field \bf B = \nabla \times \bf A , how is it possible to get \bf A ?
For constant fields, the answer is easy, but is there a general approach to find A ?
Some algorithm to do it numerically would help me immensly, too.
If anyone knows some book or reference that could help me, I'd be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In usual classroom cases, there is ussually only one component for the field, making it an ordinary differential equation. Antoher choice is to use \int_{S}BdS=\int_{\partial S}Adl, and exploit possible symmetries of the fields. In the most general case, you might use the fact that \nabla \times B=\mu_{0}j, and assuming the gauge condition \nabla \cdot A=0, you have to solve the Poisson equation: \nabla^{2}A=-\mu_{0}j
 
Thanks for your answer

In my case, J is not known (actually it's one of the things I will want to find). B is not uniform , but for a first approximation I would want to find B(x,y,z) = (0 , 0 , B0 + k*z) , B0 >> k It's a constant magnetic field with a small gradient on the top of it.

k is only some small constant.
or something like B = (k*x, 0, B0)
 
Be careful. The form of B that you are looking for doesn't seem to satisfy div B = 0 anywhere, so it isn't a legit magnetic field.

The general way to approach this is with Helmholtz's Theorem. IT is a purely mathematical result that is often invoked in EM. For a bounded region it states that for an arbitrary vector field,

<br /> \bf P(r)= \nabla \left[ \int_V \frac{-\nabla \prime \cdot P(r\prime)\, dV\prime}{4 \pi |r-r\prime|} + \int_S \frac{P(r\prime)\cdot dS\prime}{4 \pi |r-r\prime|}\right]<br /> + \nabla \times \left[ \int_V \frac{\nabla \prime \times P(r\prime)\, dV\prime}{4 \pi |r-r\prime|} + \int_S \frac{P(r\prime) \times dS\prime}{4 \pi |r-r\prime|}\right]<br />

where the surface integrals are over closed surfaces. So you need to specify the divergence and the curl and the boundary conditions in order to uniquely determine a vector field. For magnetic fields, div B = 0 always, which simplifies things a bit. If your boundary conditions are also zero, then you basically just need to perform an integration and curl operation.

jason
 
Thanks a lot Jason!
I just wrote some B field that somehow resembled what i wanted, didn't even check its divergence.
I'll try to figure it out now
 
Zhivago said:
Hello everyone!

Having a field \bf B = \nabla \times \bf A , how is it possible to get \bf A ?

You should be aware that there is a constant of integration, phi. Phi is a vector.

A \leftarrow A&#039; = A + \phi

I think you should find that the best approach is to write out the definition of the cross product of A, in terms of the parital derivatives with respect to your coordinates, and then integrate.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K