Question on an example in Griffiths' book, Not a homework

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Example 10.1 from Griffiths' book, focusing on deriving the current density from given conditions involving vector potential and electromagnetic fields. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in the derivation and the implications of Maxwell's equations in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Alan presents the problem involving the vector potential and seeks clarification on why the current density, \(\vec J\), is claimed to be zero in the book.
  • Some participants question the correctness of Alan's expression for \(\vec B\) and suggest checking the differentiation steps.
  • Others provide detailed derivations of \(\vec E\) and \(\vec B\), indicating potential errors in the original calculations.
  • Alan expresses confusion over the application of Maxwell's equations, particularly regarding the conditions under which \(\vec J\) can be zero.
  • One participant points out that the terms involving \(\mu_0\) and \(\epsilon_0\) lead to a cancellation that results in \(\vec J = 0\), but Alan remains uncertain about the implications of this result.
  • There is a suggestion that the equations may not yield \(\vec J = 0\) under certain conditions, prompting further exploration of the assumptions involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the derivations or the implications of the equations. Multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of the steps taken and the interpretation of the results.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the behavior of the fields and current density, particularly at the discontinuity at \(x=0\). The discussion highlights the complexity of applying Maxwell's equations in this scenario.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
The is example 10.1 in page 417. The example is the find the current density from given condition:

[tex]V=0,\;\;\hbox{ and } \;\;\vec A=\frac{\mu_0 k}{4c}(ct-|x|)^2 \hat z \;\hbox { for x = +ve and }\;\; \vec A=0 \;\;\hbox { for x = -ve.}[/tex]

[tex]c=\frac 1 {\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}}[/tex]

From this, you get:

[tex]\vec E= -\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t} \;=\; -\frac {\mu_0 k}{2} (ct-|x|)\hat z \;\;\;\hbox { and }\;\;\; \vec B = \nabla X \vec A = ^+_- \hat y \frac{\mu_0 k}{2c}(ct-|x|)[/tex]

[tex]\nabla X \vec B = -\hat z \frac {\mu_0 k}{2c} = \mu_0 \vec J + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \vec E}{\partial t} = \mu_0 \vec J -\hat z \mu \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \vec A}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0 \vec J - \hat z \frac{\mu_0 k c}{2}[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \vec J = -\hat z \frac {\mu_0 k}{2c} + \hat z \frac{\mu_0 k c}{2}[/tex]


The book claimed [itex]\vec J = 0[/itex] without going through the steps.

I cannot get that, please help.

Thanks

Alan
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] doesn't look correct. Can you check your differentiations ?
 
dextercioby said:
The [itex]\vec{B}[/itex] doesn't look correct. Can you check your differentiations ?

Thanks for the reply.

[tex]\vec A=\frac{\mu_0 k}{4c}(ct-|x|)^2 \hat z[/tex]

[tex]\hbox{ If x = +ve }\; |x|=x \;\Rightarrow \;\frac { d |x|}{dx}=1.\;\;\;\hbox { If x = -ve }\; |x|=-x \;\Rightarrow \; \frac { d |x|}{dx}=-1[/tex]

I don't know how to put it in determinant form use Latex so I just give the result:


[tex]\vec B = \nabla X \vec A = -\hat y \frac {\mu_0 k}{4c} [2(ct-|x|)] [-(^+_-1)][/tex]

[tex]\hbox { Where }\;[-(^+_-1)]\; \hbox{ stand for -1 if x is possitive and +1 for x is negative. }[/tex]

[tex]\vec B = \nabla X \vec A = ^+_- \hat y \frac{\mu_0 k}{2c}(ct-|x|)[/tex]

Where +ve where x is possitive and -ve when x is negative.

The book gave this for B also. I think this is correct. I skip typing in a lot of step to avoid boring people with the detail.


I just change the [itex]\;c = \frac {1}{\sqrt { \mu \epsilon }} \; \hbox { to }\;\frac {1}{\sqrt { \mu_0 \epsilon_0 }}[/itex]. This tell you that the dielectric is vacuum or air and is lossless. [itex]\vec J \;\hbox { is free current density }\;\Rightarrow\; \vec J = \sigma \vec E =0[/itex] when [itex]\sigma = 0[/itex]. Maxwell's equation cannot verify that!
 
Last edited:
Can anyone help, it really don't make sense!?
 
looks to me like you forgot the 1/c2 factor of the dE/dt term
in the curl(B) equation.
 
qbert said:
looks to me like you forgot the 1/c2 factor of the dE/dt term
in the curl(B) equation.

I cannot see anything wrong, here is a more detail derivation:

[tex]\vec E= -\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t} \;=\; -\frac {\mu_0 k}{2} (ct-|x|)\hat z \;\;\;\hbox { and }\;\;\; \vec B = \nabla X \vec A = ^+_- \hat y \frac{\mu_0 k}{2c}(ct-|x|)[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial \vec E}{\partial t} = -\hat z \frac{\partial^2 \vec A}{\partial t^2}= -\hat z \frac {\mu_0 k}{2} \frac{\partial (ct-|x|)}{\partial t} = -\hat z \frac{\mu_0 k c}{2}[/tex]

[tex]\nabla X \vec B = -\hat z \frac {\mu_0 k}{2c} = \mu_0 \vec J + \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \vec E}{\partial t} = \mu_0 \vec J -\hat z \mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 \vec A}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0 \vec J - \hat z \frac{\mu_0^2 \epsilon_0 k c}{2}[/tex]

I did forget to put back [itex]\mu_0 \epsilon_0[/itex] in the original post but that still will not make [itex]\mu_0 \vec J[/itex] equal zero. Most of the equations are in the book also. My confident with these equation is very high. It is more about something I totally miss and is not here.

Given the medium is characterized by [itex]\mu_0 \epsilon_0[/itex], you cannot have current density anywhere except at the discontinue at x=0 where there is surface current density. The problem is Putting the equations into the Maxwell's equation does not yield J=0 in the Maxwell's curl equation as shown. The only thing that can be wrong is that I should not try to put this into the Maxwell's curl equation like this. And if so, I really want to hear the reason why.

Thanks

Alan
 
Last edited:
Come on, Alan. This is an extract of what you wrote:

[tex]-\hat z \frac {\mu_0 k}{2c} = [...] = \mu_0 \vec J - \hat z \frac{\mu_0^2 \epsilon_0 k c}{2}[/tex]

So

[tex]\mu_0 \vec{J} = -\hat z \left(\frac{\mu_0 k}{2c} - \frac{\mu_0 \mu_0 \epsilon_0 k c}{2}\right)[/tex]

But [itex]\mu_0 \epsilon_0 c = \frac{1}{c}[/itex]

So, finally

[tex]\mu_0 \vec{J} = -\hat z \left(\frac{\mu_0 k}{2c} - \frac{\mu_0 k }{2c}\right) = 0[/tex]
 
dextercioby said:
Come on, Alan. This is an extract of what you wrote:

[tex]-\hat z \frac {\mu_0 k}{2c} = [...] = \mu_0 \vec J - \hat z \frac{\mu_0^2 \epsilon_0 k c}{2}[/tex]

So

[tex]\mu_0 \vec{J} = -\hat z \left(\frac{\mu_0 k}{2c} - \frac{\mu_0 \mu_0 \epsilon_0 k c}{2}\right)[/tex]

But [itex]\mu_0 \epsilon_0 c = \frac{1}{c}[/itex]

So, finally

[tex]\mu_0 \vec{J} = -\hat z \left(\frac{\mu_0 k}{2c} - \frac{\mu_0 k }{2c}\right) = 0[/tex]

I need to find a hole and jump in. I am blind, I was stuck for over a day.

Thanks

Alan
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K