Geometric perspective of the vector potential

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on visualizing the vector potential A in relation to the magnetic field B, particularly through the identity B = ∇×A. It highlights the challenge of giving A a physical meaning since it is gauge-dependent, while B is the observable quantity. For a uniform magnetic field, a specific choice of gauge, such as A_z = 0, allows for the calculation of A, demonstrating the freedom in selecting vector potentials. The conversation also touches on the complexity of determining A around a bar magnet, suggesting that solving the magnetostatic Maxwell equations is necessary for accurate representation. Overall, understanding the relationship between A and B is crucial for grasping electromagnetic theory.
PerpStudent
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I'm struggling with trying to visualize the vector potential as in the identity:

B = ∇⨯A

For starters, how does A relate to, say, a uniform magnetic field, which is quite easy to visualize. Then, how about the magnetic field around a bar magnet -- where is A?
Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The formula should look similar to something you're already familiar with:

\mu_0 j = \nabla \times B

If you can imagine the magnetic field that goes with a specific current density, then the same picture applies to the vector potential that goes with the magnetic field.
 
It's not easy to visualize \vec{A} or give it a physical meaning since it is a gauge-dependent quantity. What's physical is the magnetic field, \vec{B} which is given by

\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}.

For a constant field, it's easy to get the vector potential. So let's consider

\vec{B}=B_0 \vec{e}_z.

You have quite some freedom to choose the vector potential. You can take always one constraint since it is only defined from \vec{B} up to the gradient of a scalar field. Here, I'd choose the spatial axial gauge

A_z=0.

Then you have

\vec{B}=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> 0 \\ 0 \\ B_0<br /> \end{pmatrix} = \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> -\partial_z A_y \\ \partial_z A_x \\ \partial_x A_y-\partial_y A_x<br /> \end{pmatrix}.

Obviously our constraint doesn't fix the solutions completely, and you have some more freedom. You can, e.g., set A_x=0 and A_y=B_0 x. Then you have

\vec{A} = B_0 x \vec{e}_y.

Around a bar magnet you have to solve the magnetostatic Maxwell equations for a given magnetization of your bar. You find some calculations about this in Sommerfeld's Lectures on Theoretical Physics, vol. III.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top