How Is Equation (3.102) Derived in Electromagnetism?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of Equation (3.102) in electromagnetism, specifically how to express the magnetic field B as the curl of a vector potential A. It highlights that the condition for B to be the curl of a vector field is that the divergence of B must equal zero. The axial gauge is applied, simplifying the relationship between A and B in Cartesian coordinates. The participants detail the integration process to find expressions for the components of A based on the components of B, leading to the conclusion that specific choices for the scalar fields can satisfy the necessary conditions. Overall, the thread clarifies the derivation and confirms the accuracy of the calculations involved.
Luna=Luna
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22024273/vectorpotential.png

In the above passage, can someone explain to me where (3.102) comes from?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Take the curl of A and see if it yields B ... as long as it works it proves their contention.

How did they arrive at it? If I were attempting this I would take the curl of a general expression and then work out which parts are needed/not needed ... and this is apparently what is left!
 
Obviously a necessary condition for \vec{B} to be the curl of a vector field is
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0.
Then the vector potential is only determined up to the gradient of a scalar field. Thus one can impose one additional condition ("choice of a gauge"). In this case an axial gauge is chosen, i.e.,
\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}=\vec{B}, \quad A_x=0.
Then we have in Cartesian coordinates
B_x=\partial_y A_z-\partial_z A_y, \quad B_y=-\partial_x A_z, \quad B_z=\partial_x A_y.
From the last equation we get
A_y=\int_{x_0}^{x} \mathrm{d} x' B_z(x',y,z)+\tilde{A}_y(y,z)
and from the 2nd equation
A_z=-\int_{x_0}^x \mathrm{d} x' B_y(x',y,z) + \tilde{A}_z(y,z).
The first equation now reads
B_x(x,y,z)=-\int_{x_0}^{x} \mathrm{d} x' [\partial_y B_y(x',y,z)+\partial_z B_z(x',y,z)]+\partial_y \tilde{A}_z(y,z)-\partial_z \tilde{A}_y(y,z).
Now from \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0 we find
B_x(x,y,z)=B_x(x,y,z)-B_x(x_0,y,z) +\partial_y \tilde{A}_z(y,z)-\partial_z \tilde{A}_y(y,z)
or
B_x(x_0,y,z)=\partial_y \tilde{A}_z(y,z)-\partial_z \tilde{A}_y(y,z).
This equation we can satisfy by setting
\tilde{A}_y=0, \quad \tilde{A}_z(y,z)=\int_{y_0}^{y} \mathrm{d}y' B_x(x_0,y',z).
Putting all together we get
A_x=0, \quad A_y=\int_{x_0}^{x} \mathrm{d} x' B_z(x',y,z), \quad A_z=\int_{y_0}^{y} \mathrm{d}y' B_x(x_0,y',z)-\int_{x_0}^x \mathrm{d} x' B_y(x',y,z).
This is what's claimed in the OP.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thank you for the replies.
Makes sense now.
Thanks for taking the time to go through all the working as well vanhees, was helpful in checking my own working through it.
 
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