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

In summary, the conversation discusses an example in a physics book where the goal is to find the current density from given conditions for a specific example. The example is defined by a given electric potential and vector potential for positive and negative values of x. The conversation then delves into the derivation of the electric and magnetic fields from these conditions, using the Maxwell's equations. However, there is a discrepancy in the result as the book claims \vec J = 0 without going through the necessary steps. After discussing the issue further, it is found that the discrepancy was due to a mistake in the equations, which is then corrected. In conclusion, the conversation highlights the importance of carefully checking equations and acknowledging mistakes in scientific discussions.
  • #1
yungman
5,718
240
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
  • #2
The [itex] \vec{B} [/itex] doesn't look correct. Can you check your differentiations ?
 
  • #3
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:
  • #4
Can anyone help, it really don't make sense!?
 
  • #5
looks to me like you forgot the 1/c2 factor of the dE/dt term
in the curl(B) equation.
 
  • #6
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:
  • #7
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]
 
  • #8
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
 

1. What is the example in Griffiths' book about?

The example in Griffiths' book is about the concept of vector potential and its relation to electrostatics.

2. Is the example in Griffiths' book difficult to understand?

The difficulty of the example may vary depending on the reader's background and understanding of vector calculus and electrostatics. However, Griffiths presents the example in a clear and concise manner, making it accessible to most readers.

3. Are there any real-world applications of the example in Griffiths' book?

Yes, the concept of vector potential has many real-world applications in electromagnetism, such as in the design of magnetic levitation systems and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology.

4. Do I need to have prior knowledge of vector calculus to understand the example in Griffiths' book?

While some understanding of vector calculus may be helpful in understanding the example, Griffiths provides a brief overview of the necessary concepts in the book. Additionally, there are many online resources available for learning vector calculus.

5. Is the example in Griffiths' book relevant to current scientific research?

Yes, the concept of vector potential is still widely used in current scientific research, particularly in the field of electromagnetism. Understanding this concept is important for many advanced studies in physics and engineering.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
751
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
745
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
844
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
106
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
993
Replies
1
Views
735
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
189
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
749
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
25
Views
259
Back
Top