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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the divergence of the magnetic vector potential, represented as ∇ · A, equals zero. The vector potential A is defined by the integral A(r) = (μ / 4π) ∫ (J(r') / r) dv'. Participants clarify that the divergence operator ∇ can be distributed into the integral, leading to terms involving J' and the gradient of 1/r. Key steps include recognizing that ∇ only acts on terms dependent on r and applying Stokes' theorem to relate area integrals to line integrals, ultimately simplifying the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, specifically divergence and gradient operations.
  • Familiarity with magnetic vector potential and its mathematical representation.
  • Knowledge of Stokes' theorem and its application in vector fields.
  • Basic understanding of integrals in the context of physics and electromagnetism.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of divergence in vector fields.
  • Learn about the mathematical derivation of the magnetic vector potential.
  • Explore Stokes' theorem in greater detail and its implications in electromagnetism.
  • Investigate the relationship between J(r') and the gradient of 1/r in vector calculus.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electromagnetism who are looking to deepen their understanding of vector calculus and magnetic vector potentials.

ozone
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
∇Δ

Homework Statement



Show that [itex]\nabla \cdot A = 0[/itex]

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

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.

[itex]\nabla \cdot \left(\frac{J'}{r}\right) + J'\cdot \nabla \left(\frac{1}{r}\right)[/itex]

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

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

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'.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K