Force on point magnetic dipole

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the mechanics of magnetic forces in relation to magnetic dipoles and their interaction with magnetic fields, particularly in the context of magnetic force microscopy. A key point is the derivation of the force equation, which simplifies under the assumption that the magnetic dipole moment does not depend on coordinates, leading to the cancellation of certain terms. Participants debate the validity of assuming that the curl of the magnetic field is zero, questioning the implications of bound and free currents in this context. The conversation also touches on the nature of magnetization and how it relates to surface currents, emphasizing that the bound current is effectively zero in the interior of a magnet with constant magnetization. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of magnetic dipole interactions and the assumptions made in theoretical models.
Defennder
Homework Helper
Messages
2,590
Reaction score
5
Hi guys, I'm involved in a research project regarding discrete bit patterned media and I was tasked to figure out how a magnetic force microscope works for imaging magnetic islands on thin magnetic films coated on silicon substrate, as part of a preparatory literature review.

So I pulled out a few books from the library (and a paper Boyer, 1987) and came across this which was derived for an loop current model and which they attempted to show was conceptually equivalent to the one derived for magnetic dipole under the assumption of no-currents
\mathbf{F} = \nabla (\mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{B} ) = \mathbf{m} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{B} ) + \mathbf{B} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{m}) + (\mathbf{m} \cdot \nabla) \mathbf{B} + (\mathbf{B} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{m}.

Somehow according to the paper, this reduces to \mathbf{F} = \nabla (\mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{B} ) = \mathbf{m} \times (\nabla \times \mathbf{B} ) + (\mathbf{m} \cdot \nabla) \mathbf{B} with the other two terms disappearing because, as the paper says that m doesn't depend on coordinates. What does that mean and why? I understand m is always perpendicular to the current loop (IdS, in fact). Further, a later assumption made was that \nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mathbf{0} but I don't see why we should assume that bound and free current is 0. When is this valid and why?

I've done only a second-year EE E&M course so far where magnetic dipoles was omitted so the lecturer could start on transmission lines. So please do point out where I can read up on this. Thanks a lot.

P.S. I've seen https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210771" as well, where pam says that curl B is only non-zero on the surface of a permanent magnet but I don't see why.

http://books.google.com/books?id=I-...&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA102,M1"also seems to say curl B is nonzero at the point where the electric field is changing or alternatively when there is current or displacement current.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
its been a while but:

the curl of B? that's just current.

magnetization can be thought of as infinitesimal current loops (think 'tiny squares').
if the magnetization within the body of the permanent magnet (think 'grid of tiny squares') is constant (I'm guessing that's what it means by 'm doesn't depend on coordinates') then the currents cancel out everywhere except at the surface so that the magnet field of the permanent magnet can be though of as being due entirely to surface currents. hence curl is nonzero only at the surface.
 
Last edited:
Hi granpa. Yeah it's been I think about a semester since that I took that class. Amazingly short memory I have.

That explains a lot, so thanks for that. But it is assumed that the bound current (and hence the infinitesimal current loops) is 0, so how does that current model apply? We also assume that m is a constant vector (each magnetic dipole moment m). By definition of m, we assume that each m is due only to the bound current encircling a closed planar loop, so there's no reason to assume that m changes since neither I_b nor dS changes? But don't the dipoles interact with each other (just as you said currents cancel out everywhere) ? Doens't this cause I_b to change?
 
the bound current is zero in the interior because the magnetization is constant. the current in adjacent loops cancels out (if they are equal). it is nonzero on the surface.

picture 2 square loops adjacent to one another. imagine that each has a clockwise current. the current in the wire that they share is the sum of the 2 currents. the 2 currents are equal but in oppsite direction. so they cancel out completely.the rest of your post I can't make much sense out of
 
Last edited:
Defennder said:
Further, a later assumption made was that \nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mathbf{0} but I don't see why we should assume that bound and free current is 0. When is this valid and why?
.

I'm confused. wouldn't that just be the curl of the applied magnetic field. unless current is actually passing through the magnetic material then the curl will certainly be zero there.
 
crickets chirping.
 
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