Magnetic monopoles, electric field lines and equipotential surfaces

wam_mi
Messages
78
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



(i) Explain why it would not be possible to write the magnetic Field (B-field) in terms of a vector potential (A) IF magnetic monopoles existed.

(ii) For an electrostatic field (E-field), define the electrostatic potential (Fi), and explain CONCISELY what is meant by a field line and an equipotential surface.

(iii) At what angle do field lines and equipotential surfaces generally intersect? Briefly explain your answer.


Please help me with the three questions at above.
Cheers guys!

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
for (ii)

\phi(\vec{r})=\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{V'} \frac{\rho(\vec{r'})}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r'}|} dV'

a field line indicates the direction in which a small positive test charge would move it it were placed in the field.
an equipotental surface is just as it sounds - a surface on which the potential is equal at all points. can you prove that?

consider a conductor surface with normal \mathbf{\hat{n}}, you know \vec{E}=-\nabla \phi(\vec{r}), so \nabla \phi(\vec{r}) points in what direction..., and \vec{dr} on the equipotential surface points in what direction?
now consider d \phi - why would it be 0 if you are on the surface?

actually i just realized that the above argument can be used to answer (iii) as well , just start by assuming d \phi=0 this time
 
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