Finding a vector from the curl of a vector

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of finding a vector field ##\vec{A}## from the equation ##\nabla\phi=\nabla\times \vec{A}##. Participants explore various methods and challenges associated with solving this equation, including the implications of using Cartesian coordinates and the nature of the resulting equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether it is possible to find ##\vec{A}## from the given equation and discuss the approach to do so.
  • Participants mention that writing the equation in components leads to coupled equations for ##A_x##, ##A_y##, and ##A_z##.
  • One participant suggests that the system of equations is linear, while another expresses uncertainty about how to solve it.
  • A matrix representation of the system is presented, but it is noted that the matrix is singular and cannot be inverted, leading to the conclusion that ##A## cannot be determined.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of expressing ##A## as a combination of a curl and a gradient, leading to a decoupled system for another vector field ##F##.
  • Boundary conditions are suggested as potentially necessary for finding a solution.
  • One participant proposes an integral solution akin to the Biot-Savart law, indicating that the solution for ##A## may not be unique due to the presence of a homogeneous solution.
  • A specific form of the Biot-Savart type solution is presented, involving an integral over the gradient of ##\phi##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the solvability of the equation and the implications of the singular matrix. There is no consensus on how to proceed with finding ##\vec{A}##, and multiple competing approaches are discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the singularity of the matrix and the need for boundary conditions, as well as the dependence on the definitions of the involved quantities.

user1139
Messages
71
Reaction score
8
Consider the following

\begin{equation}
\nabla\phi=\nabla\times \vec{A}.
\end{equation}

Is it possible to find ##\vec{A}## from the above equation and if so, how does one go about doing so?

[Moderator's note: moved from a homework forum.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Thomas1 said:
Consider the following

\begin{equation}
\nabla\phi=\nabla\times \vec{A}.
\end{equation}

Is it possible to find ##\vec{A}## from the above equation and if so, how does one go about doing so?

[Moderator's note: moved from a homework forum.]
What do you get if you write this in components?
 
Working with Cartesian coordinates, I will be able to equate the respective components on the LHS and RHS. The problem comes when I want to find ##A_x##, ##A_y## and ##A_z## since the equations are now coupled.
 
Thomas1 said:
Working with Cartesian coordinates, I will be able to equate the respective components on the LHS and RHS. The problem comes when I want to find ##A_x##, ##A_y## and ##A_z## since the equations are now coupled.
Yes, but it is still a linear equation system.
 
Do you know how to solve it? I ran out of ideas.
 
You have ##c_1=z-y\, , \,c_2=x-z\, , \,c_3=y-x## which is ##\begin{bmatrix}
0&-1&1\\1&0&-1\\-1&1&0
\end{bmatrix}\cdot \begin{bmatrix}
x\\y\\z\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\c_2\\c_3
\end{bmatrix}##
so invert the matrix and solve it. Of course you only get ##x\triangleq\dfrac{\partial A_1}{\partial x_1} ,\ldots##
 
The matrix is singular and hence, cannot be inverted.
 
Thomas1 said:
The matrix is singular and hence, cannot be inverted.
Then you cannot get ##A.##
 
Thomas1 said:
Consider the following

\begin{equation}
\nabla\phi=\nabla\times \vec{A}.
\end{equation}

Is it possible to find ##\vec{A}## from the above equation and if so, how does one go about doing so?

[Moderator's note: moved from a homework forum.]

Let A = \nabla \times F + \nabla \psi. Then <br /> \nabla \times A = \nabla(\nabla \cdot F) - \nabla^2F = \nabla \phi. Adding a gradient to F does not change its curl, which is all we care about, but does change its divergence, so we can assume \nabla \cdot F = 0. That results in F satisfying Poisson's equation <br /> \nabla^2 F = - \nabla \phi. This is three decoupled equations in the cartesian components of F. There is no way to determine \psi since \nabla^2 \psi = \nabla \cdot A is not specified.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #10
If there is any hope, I think you would also need some boundary conditions.
 
  • #11
There is an integral solution to ## \nabla \times A =\nabla \phi ##. It is basically a Biot-Savart integral type solution to ## \nabla \times B=\mu_o J ##, to solve for ##B ##. There is also the possibility of a homogeneous solution, (## \nabla \times A=0 ##), so that the solution for ## A ## is not unique by this method.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #12
To write out the above Biot-Savart type solution, ## A(x)=\int \frac{\nabla \phi \times (x-x')}{4 \pi |x-x'|^3} \, d^3x' ##, where ##x ## and ## x' ## are 3 dimensional coordinate vectors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K