Proof divergence of vector potential = 0

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating that the divergence of the vector potential, denoted as \(\nabla \cdot \vec{A}(\vec{r})\), equals zero. The context involves the mathematical formulation of the vector potential in relation to current density and the use of integrals in vector calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to manipulate the divergence operator within an integral expression but struggles to achieve the desired result of zero. They express uncertainty about potential oversights or alternative methods.
  • Some participants suggest integrating by parts and argue that certain terms vanish under reasonable assumptions, while also clarifying the nature of the vector potential in relation to current density.
  • Others question the assumptions made regarding the divergence of the vector potential, noting that it is a chosen condition rather than a mathematical identity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations and approaches being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the mathematical identities involved and the implications of defining the divergence of the vector potential as zero. There is no explicit consensus yet, but productive lines of reasoning have been introduced.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly interpreting the variables involved, such as distinguishing between source points of charge and current density. There are also mentions of potential corrections to the notation used in the integral expression.

grantdenbrock
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I need to show that $$\del*\vec{A(\vec{r})}=\frac{\mu}{4\pi}\int{\frac{\vec{J{vec\r'}}}{\vec{R}}}d\tau=0$$
where A is the vector potential and R refers to "script r" or (r-r') where r is source point of charge and r' is the measurement point. tau refers to a volume integral. I have tried many times now to show this by bringing del into the integrand using product rules and the fact that $$\delR=-\del'R'$$ but cannot make it equal zero. I am not sure if there is something I have overlooked or another method to use but any help or suggestions are much appreciated!

Homework Equations


del*R=-del'R' must be used at some point[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


My solution thus far goes like this (Sorry My latex is awful so I will just write out my method)
1) bring Del into the integrand
2) using product rule rule of dot products expand into 2 terms each with its own dot product
3) del*J' =0 since del operates on unprimed coordinates
4) J' del*1/R does not equal zero therefore integrand does not equal zero :/[/B]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I should add that its divergence of A, meaning del dot A =0 . Also, I am aware of the other thread regarding this problem however that thread does not contain any useful information or attempt a solution.
 
From what you've said, you should be able to show that
$$ \nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{x}) = - \frac{\mu}{4\pi} \int \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{x}') \cdot \nabla' \left(\frac{1}{|\mathbf{x}- \mathbf{x}'|} \right) d\mathbf{x}'.$$
The next step would be to integrate by parts and argue that both terms vanish independently subject to reasonable assumptions.
 

You write "... r is source point of charge ..." but don't you mean "source point of current density"? The integral certainly looks like the magnetic vector potential, especially with the μ in it ... based on that assumption I offer the following:

∇⋅A
= 0 is not an identity. It is chosen as a convenience.
We define A as H = ∇ x A.
By Maxwell, ∇ x H = j (j = current density).
So j = ∇ x (∇ x A).
But by a mathematical identity, this can be rewritten as
j = ∇(∇⋅A) - ∇2A
So we choose ∇⋅A = 0, giving
2A = -j
i.e. the Poisson equation, the solution for which is your integral. BTW the denominator in the integrand should read |R|. You can't divide one vector by another, at least not to my knowledge.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
757
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
25K