1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Griffiths Electrodynamics gradient of charge distribution

  1. Apr 7, 2013 #1
    I do not understand the following from Griffiths’ Electrodynamics – page 424 Equation 10.21.

    \nabla p = \dot{p} \nabla {tr} = …

    I’m not sure how much of this applies (I think my question is on the math) but p is the charge distribution, tr is the retarded time.

    Is this an application of the chain rule?

    With the gradient being a derivative with respect to spatial location (x,y,z), why is the time derivative showing up in the gradient? I initially want to say if something is dependent upon t but not on x, then its derivative with respect to x is zero.

    The result looks like the chain rule applied – I don’t see why the time dependent portion shows up.

    Can you help clear this up for me?

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2013 #2
    continuity equation?
  4. Apr 7, 2013 #3
    I do not see it yet.

    I see later on the same page

    \nabla \dot{p} = \ddot{p} \nabla {tr} = …

    Can you explain further?

    Somehow the gradient is giving an additional time derivative.

  5. Apr 8, 2013 #4
    [itex]\rho[/itex] has arguments like this:
    [itex]\rho (\vec{r}', t_r(\vec{r}, \vec{r}', t)) [/itex]

    The gradient is being applied w.r.t to the coordinates of [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] ( not [itex]\vec{r}'[/itex] which gets integrated away). The coordinates that we would be taking the derivative with respect to in order to obtain the gradient are only found in the parameters of [itex]t_r[/itex]. So this result is from the chain rule. Here is one component of the gradient, for example.
    [itex](\nabla \rho)_x = \frac{\partial \rho (\vec{r}', t_r(x, y, z, \vec{r}', t))}{\partial x} = \dot{\rho}\frac{\partial t_r}{\partial x} [/itex]
  6. Apr 8, 2013 #5
    Oh I see, did he specify that the dot derivative is with respective to retarded time?
  7. Apr 8, 2013 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It won't matter. ##\partial _{t_{r}} = \frac{\partial t_{r}}{\partial t}\partial _{t} = \frac{\partial }{\partial t}(t - \frac{\mathfrak{r}}{c})\partial_{t} = \partial_{t}##.

    Anyways, as noted above ##\rho = \rho(r',t_{r}) ## and ##r'## is no longer a variable after integration but ##t_{r} = t_{r}(t,x,y,z,r')## so ##\nabla \rho = \partial _{t_{r}}\rho \nabla t_{r} = \partial_{t}\rho \nabla t_{r}##. Not sure what that has to do with the conservation of 4-current (continuity equation) ##\partial_{a}j^{a} = 0##.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2013
  8. Apr 8, 2013 #7
    Thank you!!

    I went back in this section of the text and reread. I see that p (charge density) is specified p(r’, tr). That is actually the point of this topic (the nonstatic case).

    You confirmed that this is an application of the chain rule and p is a function of position and tr.

    Thank you for the help!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook