Magnetic field due to a current

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the formula for the magnetic field produced by an infinite wire carrying a current. The original poster attempts to apply both Ampere's law and Biot-Savart's law to understand the magnetic field at a point located at a distance from the wire.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the application of Ampere's law and Biot-Savart's law, questioning how to reconcile differing results. There is discussion about the contribution of different segments of the wire to the magnetic field at a specific point, with some participants suggesting that only certain parts of the wire contribute.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants expressing confusion and seeking clarification on the implications of integrating over an infinite wire. There are multiple interpretations regarding the contributions to the magnetic field, and some participants are questioning the validity of their assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of integrating over an infinite length of wire and the assumptions about contributions to the magnetic field from various segments of the wire. There is a noted uncertainty about the proper setup for the integral and the factors involved in the calculations.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286

Homework Statement


I set up myself to derive the formula of the magnetic field due to a current I carried by an infinite wire. At a point P situated at a distance d from the wire.


Homework Equations


Ampere's law and Biot-Savart's law.


The Attempt at a Solution


With Ampere's law, it's simple: [tex]\oint \vec B d\vec l = \mu _0 I[/tex], thus [tex]B=\frac{\mu _0 I}{2 \pi d}[/tex] and its direction is easy to figure out thanks to the right hand rule.
I'm having problems with Biot and Savart's law.
[tex]d\vec B =\frac{\mu _0}{4\pi} I d\vec l \times \frac{\vec r}{r^3}\Rightarrow \vec B=\frac{\mu _0}{4 \pi} \oint I d\vec l \times \frac{\vec r}{r^3}[/tex], thus [tex]B=\frac{\mu _0 I}{4 \pi d}[/tex]. I don't see how I can get a factor 2 in this result, to make it coincide with the anterior result.

Aside question: If I understand well, an infinitesimal length dl of the wire contributes to the magnetic field only in an orthogonal plane to it, right? So that it doesn't contribute to points out of this plane, right?

Thanks for all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How can you do a closed integral if the wire is from - infinity to + infinity. I think that there could be a factor of two also in that integral. because your wire is infinitely long, any point d could be said to be in the middle of the wire. So you would want to take the integral from -infinity to +infinity, which could be equal to twice the integral from 0 to infinity.

And I'm pretty sure the magnitude depends on the radial distance from the wire, and always acts orthogonal to that radial vector
 
dacruick said:
How can you do a closed integral if the wire is from - infinity to + infinity. I think that there could be a factor of two also in that integral. because your wire is infinitely long, any point d could be said to be in the middle of the wire. So you would want to take the integral from -infinity to +infinity, which could be equal to twice the integral from 0 to infinity.
Because as I implied, I believe that the only part of the wire that contributes to the magnetic field at point P is the orthogonal projection of P into the wire. In other words, almost all the wire doesn't create the magnetic field at point P.
I wanted to know if I'm right on this.

And I'm pretty sure the magnitude depends on the radial distance from the wire, and always acts orthogonal to that radial vector
I'm also sure of that! Look at my formula. The d is the distance from the wire to the point P.
 
if only one part of the wire contributes you shouldn't be doing an integral at all right?
 
dacruick said:
if only one part of the wire contributes you shouldn't be doing an integral at all right?

Hmm ok... I'm (very) confused.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K