Magnetostatics Proof: Proving Integral Along a Closed Loop = 0

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the integral along a closed loop in magnetostatics, specifically the integral \(\oint_2 (1/r^2) dr\), equals zero. The user is attempting to derive this result starting from the Biot-Savart law and the Lorentz force law, ultimately showing that the force on loop 2 due to loop 1 is equal and opposite to the force on loop 1 due to loop 2. The proof requires understanding the relationship between the scalar distance \(r\) and the vector displacement \(\overrightarrow{r}\) between points on the two loops, as well as the application of loop integrals in vector calculus.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force law in electromagnetism.
  • Familiarity with vector calculus, particularly loop integrals and gradients.
  • Knowledge of magnetostatics and the concept of source and recipient currents.
  • Ability to manipulate and interpret scalar and vector quantities in three-dimensional space.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Biot-Savart law and its applications in magnetostatics.
  • Learn about the properties of closed loop integrals in vector calculus.
  • Explore textbooks that cover magnetostatics and the mathematical foundations of electromagnetism.
  • Investigate the relationship between vector fields and their gradients in three-dimensional space.
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, electromagnetism researchers, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of magnetostatics and vector calculus.

rocket
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm working on a physics problem, and i got stuck on an integral. the entire question is as follows:

----------------------------
Magnetostatics treats the "source current" (the one that sets up the field) and
the "recipient current" (the one that experiences the force) so asymmetrically that it is by no means obvious that the magnetic force between two current loops is consistent with Newton"s third law. Show, starting with the Biot-Savart law and the Lorentz force law, that the force on loop 2 due to loop 1 can be written as

F2 = -\frac{\mu_o}{4\pi}I_1 I_2 \oint_1 \oint_2 \frac{\widehat{r}}{r^2} d\overrightarrow{l_1} \cdot d\overrightarrow{l_2}

In this form it is clear that F2 = — F1, since i changes direction when the roles of 1 and 2 are interchanged. (If you seem to be getting an "extra" term, it will help to note that d\overrightarrow{l_2} \cdot \widehat{r} = dr.)
--------------------------------------


I'm okay with most of the proof - just a specific part I'm stuck on. i got to the part where i have
F2 = \frac{\mu_o}{4\pi}I_1 I_2 [\oint_1 \oint_2 \frac{d\overrightarrow{l_1} dr}{r^2} - \oint_1 \oint_2 \frac{\widehat{r}}{r^2} d\overrightarrow{l_1} \cdot d\overrightarrow{l_2}]

i want to prove that the first integral is zero, so i need to show that this integral along a closed loop:

\oint_2 (1/r^2) dr

is equal to zero. but I'm not sure how to prove it. i was wondering if someone can show me a rigid proof for this. Note that the integral is along loop 2. Note also that the \overrightarrow{r} is the distance from a point on loop 1 to a point on loop 2 - that is, \overrightarrow {r} = (x2-x1, y2-y1, z2-z1), so in the integral above, where r is a scalar, then r = [(x2-x1, y2-y1, z2-z1)]^{1/2}. I'm not sure how to rewrite dr in terms of x2, since r is a scaler. should it be dr = dxdydz? I think I'm missing something here because I'm not really that familiar with loop integrals.
 

Attachments

  • 5.62.jpeg
    5.62.jpeg
    7.6 KB · Views: 541
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
{\bf\hat r}/r^3 is wrong.
It should be \frac{\bf(r_2-r_1)}{{\bf|r_2-r_1|}^3}.
Then the first integral becomes dl dot a gradient which integrates to zero.
This problem is worked out in several tetbooks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K