How to find the potential of a field that has regions of non-zero curl

Click For Summary
In electrostatics, the electric field E is conservative, allowing for the potential V to be derived from E as V = -∫E·dr. However, in regions where the curl of E is non-zero, such as those influenced by magnetic fields, constructing a global potential becomes impossible. The discussion emphasizes that one must integrate the field only in simply connected regions, excluding areas with non-zero curl to avoid inaccuracies. When dealing with non-simply-connected regions, the usual methods for finding potential do not apply, leading to results that do not satisfy the system. Ultimately, the inability to define a potential in these regions highlights the limitations of traditional approaches in electromagnetism.
kated
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
I want to find the potential of a field at a point where the curl of the field is zero but there are regions(for example far away from the point that interest us) that have non zero curl.
Relevant Equations
E=-gradV
curl E = Ω ≠ 0
We know that in electrostatics, there is path independency for line integral of E, so E is a conservative field and thus we have E=-gradV. Integrating this from ro(reference point of our choice) to the point r we are studying, along a random path, we get the solution of the above equation, e.g. the potential V. But, there are some areas (possibly far away from
the point r that interests us) where the curl E is not zero, e.g., curl E = Ω ≠ 0 , with Ω
being a vector field perpendicular to the plane, which only exists in these areas, then
how would we solve again Α=gradΛ, to find the scalar function Λ at point r? (how will the previous (usual)
solution change/get corrected?) Consider the (unusual) case where Ω is a static
(time-independent) field.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot construct a global potential in this situation. The best you can do is to integrate the field in a region that is simply connected and excludes the region with non-zero curl.
 
What do you mean by excluding the region with non-zero curl? Doesn't it affect the result? If for example I have an infinite wire with width=d(y=0, y=d) with B a magnetic field that exist only inside the wire and is perpedicular to the plane, and we want to find the potential at a point r far away and above from the wire then if we choose a path starting below the wire where B=0 and ending at r(again B=0) but the path goes through the wire doesnt this affect the result? I mean if we do the same process we do when we are talking about conservative fields isnt the result 0 which does not satisfy the system? How can we correct this?
 
kated said:
What do you mean by excluding the region with non-zero curl? Doesn't it affect the result? If for example I have an infinite wire with width=d(y=0, y=d) with B a magnetic field that exist only inside the wire and is perpedicular to the plane, and we want to find the potential at a point r far away and above from the wire then if we choose a path starting below the wire where B=0 and ending at r(again B=0) but the path goes through the wire doesnt this affect the result?
Of course it does. The region where the curl is non-zero is then not simply connected, thereby violating the explicit requirement:
Orodruin said:
The best you can do is to integrate the field in a region that is simply connected and excludes the region with non-zero curl.


kated said:
I mean if we do the same process we do when we are talking about conservative fields isnt the result 0 which does not satisfy the system? How can we correct this?
You can't. In your non-simply-connected region, it is generally not possible to write the field as the derivative of a potential because the region is not simply connected.
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K