How Is the Divergence of J Derived in Electromagnetic Fields?

barefeet
Messages
58
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


In a book I find the following derivation:
\int (J \cdot \nabla ) \frac{\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;}{|\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;|^3} d^3\mathbf{r&#039;}= -\sum_{i=1}^3 \int J_i \frac{\partial}{\partial r_i&#039;} \frac{\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;}{|\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;|^3} d^3\mathbf{r&#039;} \\<br /> = -\sum_{i=1}^3 \int J_i \frac{\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;}{|\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;|^3} d^2r_{j\neq i}&#039;\bigg|_{r_i&#039; = -\infty}^\infty + \int \frac{\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;}{|\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;|^3} \nabla&#039; \cdot \mathbf{J} d^3\mathbf{r&#039;}

Homework Equations


None

The Attempt at a Solution


I understand the first line, but in the second line I don't understand how the second term comes about. I don't see how the divergence of J is taken as the nabla operator doesn't operate on it. If I calculate for example one of the three terms:
\int J_x \frac{\partial}{\partial x&#039;} \frac{\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;}{|\bf{r} - \bf{r}&#039;|^3} d^3\mathbf{r&#039;}
I don't see how a term with \frac{\partial J_x}{\partial x&#039;} comes out of this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here is a hint: integration by parts
 
the x component of j*grad (r/r3) is j*grad(rx/r3), not jxgrad(rx/r3) you then use the vector calculus identity
div(fV)=fdivV+V*grad(f)
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top