Question on Coulomb and Lorenz Gauge

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
294
This is Problem 10.6 in page 422 of "Introduction to Electrodynamics" Edition 2 by David Griffiths. The question is:

Which of the potentials in the following is in the Coulomb gauge? Which is in Lorenz Gauge?( Notice that these gauges are not mutually exclusive.)

This is what the solution gave:
V)(\vec r, t)=0,\; and\; \vec A(\vec r,t)=-\hat r \frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0r^2}
\nabla\cdot \vec A=-\frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0)} \nabla\left(\frac{\vec r}{r^2}\right)=-\frac{qt}{\epsilon_0)}\delta^3(\vec r)\Rightarrow\; \nabla\cdot\vec A\neq 0
I disagree:
\nabla\cdot\vec A=\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial (r^2A_r)}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r\sin\theta}\frac{\partial (A_{\theta}\sin\theta)}{\partial \theta}+\frac{1}{r\sin\theta}\frac{\partial A_{\phi}}{\partial \phi}
\Rightarrow\;\nabla\cdot\vec A=-\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial \left(r^2\frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r^2}\right)}{\partial r}= -\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial \left(\frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\right)}{\partial r}=0

Please help
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yungman said:
\Rightarrow\;\nabla\cdot\vec A=-\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial \left(r^2\frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r^2}\right)}{\partial r}= -\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial \left(\frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\right)}{\partial r}=0

This result holds for all points except at the origin. For ##r = 0## the expression ##-\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial \left(\frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\right)}{\partial r}=0## is not well defined. See section 1.5.1 on page 45 and equation (1.99) on page 50 of Griffiths.
 
TSny said:
This result holds for all points except at the origin. For ##r = 0## the expression ##-\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial \left(\frac{qt}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\right)}{\partial r}=0## is not well defined. See section 1.5.1 on page 45 and equation (1.99) on page 50 of Griffiths.

thanks

So you mean it's not the differentiation part, it's the ##\frac {1}{r^2}## part that goes to infinity at r+0. But if the differentiation part is zero, everything time zero is zero!
 
yungman said:
So you mean it's not the differentiation part, it's the ##\frac {1}{r^2}## part that goes to infinity at r+0. But if the differentiation part is zero, everything time zero is zero!

Any finite quantity times zero is zero. But 1/r2 is not a finite quantity at the origin. So, you sort of end up with ∞##\cdot##0 at the origin. What if I say the answer should be ∞ because "infinity times anything is infinity"?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
TSny said:
Any finite quantity times zero is zero. But 1/r2 is not a finite quantity at the origin. So, you sort of end up with ∞##\cdot##0 at the origin. What if I say the answer should be ∞ because "infinity times anything is infinity"?

Thanks, I since read page 46 to 50. I forgot all about this.
 
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