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.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
I know that mass does not affect the acceleration in a simple pendulum undergoing SHM, but how does the mass on the spring that makes up the elastic pendulum affect its acceleration? Certainly, there must be a change due to the displacement from equilibrium caused by each differing mass? I am talking about finding the acceleration at a specific time on each trial with different masses and comparing them. How would they compare and why?
Back
Top