Is Faraday's Law Always Zero?

  • Thread starter Thread starter latentcorpse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Faraday's law Law
latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
ok so Faraday's Law says that

\oint_C \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \int_S \vec{B} \cdot \vec{dA}

but we know that \vec{E}=-\nabla \varphi

and so \oint_C \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dr} =-\oint_C \nabla \times \nabla \varphi \cdot \vec{dA}=0 by Stokes' Theorem.

therefore, why isn't the RHS of Farady's Law just 0 all the time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Haha, I had this exact same question the first time I took E&M

The electric field is only curl free in electro statics, when there are NO moving charges. When there ARE moving charges the electric field is no longer curl free, and obeys Faraday's law.

In the terms you presented, in electro statics the E field is due to a gradient of a scalar potential; however, in electro-dynamics, where charges can move, the E field is due to a gradient of a scalar as well as the time derivative of the vector potential. Thus, the closed line integral of E is no longer required to be 0.

In deeper terms, the electric field is not just due to static charges, but also due to changing magnetic fields. This is exactly what Faraday's law is trying to say.
 
Last edited:
i thought it might be that. what do you mean by curl free?
 
Curl free means that the curl of the field is zero.
 
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