Integral vs differential curl theorem implicit condition

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the relationship between the integral and differential forms of Faraday's law, specifically addressing the constant of integration that appears in the differential version but not in the integral version. The user presents a scenario with a magnetic field \(\mathbf{B} = At \mathbf{\hat{e}_z}\) and an electric field \(\mathbf{E} = E(r) \mathbf{\hat{e}_{\phi}}\), deriving expressions for \(\mathbf{E}\) using both forms of Faraday's law. The conclusion emphasizes that the assumption of continuity of the magnetic field \(\mathbf{B}\) at \(r=0\) leads to the disappearance of the constant in the differential form, highlighting the implicit conditions required for both formulations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, specifically curl and line integrals.
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic theory, particularly Faraday's law of induction.
  • Knowledge of differential equations and integration techniques.
  • Basic understanding of cylindrical coordinates and their applications in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of continuity in electromagnetic fields, particularly at singular points.
  • Explore the mathematical derivation of Maxwell's equations in both integral and differential forms.
  • Learn about the physical significance of constants of integration in differential equations.
  • Investigate the role of boundary conditions in electromagnetic field theory.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those specializing in electromagnetism, as well as educators seeking to clarify the nuances between integral and differential forms of physical laws.

superg33k
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Faraday's law has an integral and a differential version:

[tex]curl \mathbf{E} = - \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \mbox{ and } \oint_{C} \mathbf{E} \cdot d \mathbf{l}=- \frac{d}{dt} \int_{S} \mathbf{B} \cdot d \mathbf{S}[/tex]

When I use the differential version I always have a constant of integration that doesn't appear in the integral version. Where does it come from? Am I making an implicit assumption using the integral version or am I making an explicit assumption that I have not noticed?

For example given:
[tex]\mathbf{B}=At \mathbf{ \hat{e}_z} \mbox{ and } \mathbf{E}=E(r) \mathbf{ \hat{e}_{\phi}}[/tex]
I solve this as:
[tex]curl \mathbf{E} = - \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \Rightarrow \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r E(r)) = - \frac{\partial }{\partial t} At = -A \Rightarrow \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r E(r)) = -Ar \Rightarrow rE(r) = \int -Ar \partial r = -\frac{Ar^2}{2} +B, r \gt 0[/tex]
[tex]E(r) = -\frac{Ar}{2} +\frac{B}{r}, r \gt 0[/tex]

Now the integral version, the line/surface integral is a circle round the z axis.
[tex]C: r=R, 0 \lt \phi \leq 2\pi, z=0, d \mathbf{l} = R \mathbf{\hat{e}_{\phi}}\partial\phi \mbox{ and } S: 0 \lt r \leq R, 0 \lt \phi \leq 2\pi, z=0, d \mathbf{S}= r \mathbf{\hat{e}_z}\partial \phi \partial r[/tex]
[tex]\oint_{C} \mathbf{E} \cdot d \mathbf{l}=- \frac{d}{dt} \int_{S} \mathbf{B} \cdot d \mathbf{S} \Rightarrow \oint_{0}^{2\pi}(E(R) \mathbf{ \hat{e}_{\phi}}) \cdot (R \mathbf{\hat{e}_{\phi}})\partial\phi = 2\pi R E(R) = - \frac{d}{dt} \int_{0}^{R} \int_{0}^{2 \pi} At \mathbf{ \hat{e}_z} \cdot r \mathbf{\hat{e}_z}\partial \phi \partial r=-\pi AR^2 \Rightarrow E(R)=-\frac{AR}{2}[/tex]
since true for all R>0
[tex]E(r)=-\frac{Ar}{2}, r \gt 0[/tex]

Where have I made any assumption that makes B disappear? (Sorry for any mistakes in my latex)

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your surface S is encloses the origin, so your integral over S assumes that the B field is contiuious everywhere inside it, including r=0. Therefore you have assumed that B and hence E isn't infinite at r=0. Apply this same assumption to your differential version and your constant B dissappears.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
superg33k said:
Your surface S is encloses the origin, so your integral over S assumes that the B field is contiuious everywhere inside it, including r=0. Therefore you have assumed that B and hence E isn't infinite at r=0. Apply this same assumption to your differential version and your constant B dissappears.

Just to let you know, we don't allow insults here, not even directed at yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K