Is There a Contradiction in Calculating Magnetic Fields in Infinite Planes?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nonequilibrium
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contradiction Maxwell
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of magnetic fields generated by an infinite plane with a current density J, particularly exploring potential contradictions in the application of different magnetic field formulas. Participants examine the implications of vector directions in magnetic fields and the conditions under which integrals converge.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for the magnetic field due to an infinite plane with current density J and notes a divergence when attempting to calculate it using an integral approach.
  • Another participant points out that the magnetic field is a vector and that contributions from different segments of the current may cancel out, suggesting the need for a vector analysis in Cartesian coordinates.
  • A further contribution indicates that an additional factor, specifically the cosine of the angle, should be included to account for the x component of the magnetic field, which may resolve the divergence issue.
  • A later reply expresses acknowledgment of the oversight regarding the vector nature of the magnetic field and thanks the previous participant for the clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the initial calculation method, as there are differing views on the treatment of the magnetic field as a vector and the implications for the integral's convergence.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the assumptions made regarding the directionality of the magnetic field contributions and the mathematical treatment of the integral involved.

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Okay, the title is promising something big. I'm sorry, it's probably not big, but it does seem important, although for some it will be unsignificant, I suppose it depends on your interests in physics:

So if you have an infinite plane with current density J (current per meter width) (say pointing up in the y direction, in the xy-plane), you have a magnetic field independent of distance, pointing in the +/-x direction (dependent on which side) with formula:

[tex]B = \frac{\mu J}{2}[/tex]

This is easily derived from the Ampère-Maxwell law (Bds = mu*I will suffice).

But what if we use the general result that if we have one (infinite) conducting wire with current I, the magnetic field at a distance a is:

[tex]B = \frac{\mu I}{2 \pi a}[/tex]

Then if we go back to our infinite J-plane, and we fix ourselves on a certain point on the z-axis looking at the infinite plane, say (0,0,d), we can say a dx-segment of the plane contributes a dB field with

[tex]dB = \frac{\mu J dx}{2 \pi \sqrt(d^2+x^2)}[/tex]

since dI = Jdx (from the definition of J) and we use the fact that the distance 'a' from a certain dI to the fixed point on the z-axis is a = sqrt(d² + x²) with d the distance to the closest dI.

However, taking the integral from x = - infinity .. infinity, it diverges!

Why can't I calculate it this way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are ignoring the fact that the magnetic field is a vector. If we have an infinite line of current along the z-axis, the magnetic field is directed along the \hat{\phi} direction. You have assumed that all the magnetic fields contributing from your line currents are directed along the same direction, thus adding up without any cancellation. You need to take this into account by converting the magnetic field to a vector in cartesian coordinates and then finding the appropriate direction based on the position of the wire.
 
you need an extra factor of

[tex] \cos \theta = \frac{d}{\sqrt{d^{2} + x^{2}}}[/tex]

for the x component. The other components will cancel and the integral converges now.
 
Oh of course :) how silly, thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
573
Replies
92
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K