Proof that ∇ * A (magnetic vector potential) = 0

ozone
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
∇Δ

Homework Statement



Show that \nabla \cdot A = 0

Where A is formally defined as
A(r) = \frac{\mu }{4\pi }\int \frac{J(r')\text{ }}{r} \, dv'

I understand that we can distribute ∇ into the integral, and from there we can do a little bit of algebra to get the terms inside the integrand of the form.

\nabla \cdot \left(\frac{J'}{r}\right) + J'\cdot \nabla \left(\frac{1}{r}\right)

Now what happens next is where I get lost. I don't fully understand why we can throw away the first term since ∇ isn't dependent upon J'. I haven't seen anything like this done before and it seems a little fishy. Next griffiths uses some identity to change

J'\cdot \nabla \left(\frac{1}{r}\right) = -J'\cdot \nabla '\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)

Then he repeats this whole process again, and throws away the J term. Finally he finishes with stokes theorem to relate the area integral to a line integrand.

I guess I could just use a little bit of commentary on this proof as it doesn't make much sense to me yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all ∇ will only operate on those function which depends on r,not on r'.Since in expression of A only 1/r is the one which depends on r,So only this term will be considered and no others.The next one is the usual technique which is used many times.Your 1/r is actually 1/mod(r-r'),you can verify that ∇ acting on r in this will give the same result as -∇' acting on r'.
 
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