How to Evaluate the Magnetic Field in the Biot-Savart Law When r-r' Equals Zero?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the challenge of evaluating the magnetic field using the Biot-Savart law when the vector difference r-r' equals zero, particularly in scenarios involving incomplete circuits. It highlights that this situation leads to divergences similar to those encountered with point charges in electrostatics. The conversation suggests using superposition to resolve the magnetic field in a square current loop and compares the behavior of magnetic fields around infinitely long wires versus those with physical dimensions. The key takeaway is that while a delta-function current density leads to infinite magnetic fields at the source, a finite current distribution results in well-defined magnetic fields. Understanding these differences is crucial for accurate calculations in electromagnetism.
alireza.ramezan
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Dear sir/lady

I have a question about the magnrtic force of steady current .
In Biot - Savart law to evalute of B (magnetic Field ) , below the Integral we have to do a cross product Idl'*(r-r')/|r-r'|^3 that r and r' are the vector position of the field and source . How we can evaluate this Integral if the vector r-r' is zero . ?
for example if we have a U shape Incomplete circuit and put a metal bar as the fourth side to complete it , when a stationary current I circualtes in square , a force will exert on the bar . if we would like to evaluate the force exerted by three sides on the fourth one , we will encounter this problem for the toppest and the lowest point of fourth one , on corners .Because vector r-r' =0 and B approches to infinity . Please help me .
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have a square shape current loop you can use superposition (i.e. the additive linearity operator).
 
If you have a totally localized current distribution, you'll get divergences, same as if you have point charges in electrostatics, i.e. in Coulomb's Law. Try solving the magnetic field for a cylindrical charge distribution and see what you get.
 
please explain me more !
 
Well, just work it out. The Biot-Savart law is pretty much equivalent to Ampere's law, so I'll work out the most trivial example of Ampere's law.

If you have an infinitely long wire with a current I running through it, and it has no spatial extent, then if I make a circle centered on the wire, I find that
\oint \mathbf{B} \cdot d \mathbf{l} = \mu_0 I
which leads to
B (2 \pi r) = \mu_0 I
from which we see that the magnetic field is infinite at r = 0.

Now let's work the same problem, only this time with a wire of radius a and constant current density J. Outside the wire, we get the same result from Ampere's law:
B = \frac{m_0}{2 \pi} \frac{\pi a^2 J}{r}
But inside, the magnetic field is different. Inside, the current enclosed in the loop is given by I = \pi r^2 J, which means that
B = \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \pi r J
The magnetic field is nice and well-behaved inside the wire! But what's the difference?

Well, in the first case, the current density can be described as a delta-function, so that \nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mu_0 I \delta(x)\delta(y) if, say, the wire is resting on the z-axis. These delta-functions are wildly singular, and in fact this differential equation looks very similar to that of a point electrostatic charge \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = q \delta(\mathbf{r}) / \epsilon_0

In the second case, the current distribution can be described by step-functions, which although their derivatives are discontinuous, the actual functions are finite and well-behaved everywhere. This is the origin of the difference, and why the magnetic field would diverge for a wire of zero physical extent.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top