Integrating a vector (Electromagnetism)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the magnetic field \textbf{B} given the electric field \textbf{E}(z,t) = E_{0}cos(kz+ωt)\textbf{i}. The curl of \textbf{E} is calculated, leading to the expression for \frac{\partial\textbf{B}}{\partial t}. There is uncertainty regarding the integration process and whether the functions f(z) and g(z) can be set to zero, with clarification that these can be incorporated into an arbitrary constant vector \textbf{c}. The conversation also touches on applying Faraday's Law and Gauss's Law to conclude that the static magnetic field \textbf{B}_0 must vanish at infinity, leading to the standard plane-wave solution. The integration and assumptions ultimately guide the derivation of the magnetic field in the context of electromagnetism.
raggle
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given \textbf{E}(z,t) = E_{0}cos(kz+ωt)\textbf{i}
Find B

Homework Equations



∇ x E = -\frac{\partial\textbf{B}}{\partial t}

The Attempt at a Solution



Taking the curl of \textbf{E} gives (0, -ksin(kz+\omega t), 0)
so
\frac{\partial\textbf{B}}{\partial t} = (0,ksin(kz+\omega t),0)

I'm not too confident integrating this, I got
\textbf{B} = (f(z),-\frac{k}{\omega}cos(kz+\omega t), g(z)) + \textbf{c}
where c is a constant of integration.

Is this right? The next part of the question asks for the poynting vector and it seems like a lot of work calculating \textbf{E} \times \textbf{B} , would i be allowed to set f = g = 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where did you get this "f(z)" and "g(z)"? The "constant" of integration is the vector c you have added.
 
Yeah that's what I'm confused about.
My reasoning is that I have \frac{\partial \textbf{B}}{\partial t} in terms of \textbf{E}, and since \textbf{E} is a function of z and t I get the functions of z from partially integrating wrt t.
Should they be 0?
 
Oh wait I think i just got it.
I can put those functions of z into the arbitrary constant vector c can't I?

Thanks!
 
From the Faraday Law alone, we can in fact only conclude that
\vec{B}(t,\vec{r})=-E_0 \frac{k}{\omega} \cos(\omega t+k z)+\vec{B}_0(\vec{r})
where \vec{B}_0 is an arbitrary static magnetic field.

From Gauss's Law for the magentic field we find
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}_0=0.

From the Maxwell-Ampere Law, assuming that there are no currents, we get
\partial_t \vec{E}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B} \; \Rightarrow \; \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}_0=0.
Thus static magnetic field \vec{B}_0 is both source and vortex free. Thus if it should vanish at inifinity, it must be 0.

From these additional assumptions we get the usual plane-wave solution.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top