I Question about Coloumb's law notation and math in two different textbooks

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the differences in notation for Coulomb's law between Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" and Griffiths' textbook. Jackson modifies the formula to include a cube of the magnitude in the denominator, which some find less mathematically awkward. The key point is that both notations ultimately describe the same physical force between point charges, with clarity achieved by rewriting Jackson's formula in terms of vector components. Additionally, the form used by Jackson is noted to be more convenient for vector calculus operations, especially in spherical coordinates. Understanding these notational differences is essential for mastering the material in Jackson's text.
Selectron09
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Trying to understand mathematically how Jackson Classical Electrodynamics and Griffiths both describe coloumb's law equation
I am currently taking Electricity and Magnetism I for Graduate school and we are of course using Jackson Classical Electrodynamics 3e. I am used to Griffiths from undergrad and intro physics in that they describe it:
1694274144420.png


But Jackson modifies the notation to include a cube of the magnitude in the denominator:
1694274419944.png


I have tried to wrap my head around it. My professor just said it makes it "less mathematically akward" which is fine. Can someone take me stepwise line by line why these two are the same? I would really appreciate it. I want to be sure that I am getting used to the notation early of Jackson as I hear that's the trickiest part. It's not "new" physics!
 

Attachments

  • 1694273807045.png
    1694273807045.png
    19.9 KB · Views: 93
  • 1694274310407.png
    1694274310407.png
    19.1 KB · Views: 93
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course, Jackson has it in the clearest way. It's just giving the force between two point charges at given positions. Of course it's the same as in Griffiths's book. You only have to look up the definition of ##\vec{r}##. That becomes clear by rewriting the Jackson formula in the following way
$$\vec{F}=\frac{k q_1 q_2}{|\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2|^2} \frac{\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2}{|\vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2} \equiv \frac{k q_1 q_2}{r^2} \hat{r},$$
where ##\vec{r}=vec{x}_1-\vec{x}_2## and ##\hat{r}=\vec{r}/|\vec{r}|##.

I'd also have written ##\vec{F}_1## for the force, because it's the force on charge 1 due to the presence of charge 2. Of course, you get ##\vec{F}_2=-\vec{F}_1## as it should be for static fields.
 
  • Like
Likes Selectron09
Thankyou very much. That was amazingly helpful and gets me on the right track now as I continue through the reading. Much gratitude and I shall not hesitate to come back again after I've struggled through it.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz and vanhees71
The form ##{\bf r}/r^3## is more convenient for taking vector derivatives like grad, div, curl.
 
You can also work in, e.g., spherical coordinates. Then you work with vector components wrt. the according (position-dependent) vectors ##\vec{e}_r##, ##\vec{e}_{\vartheta}##, and ##\vec{e}_{\varphi}##.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top