Retarded potential of a wire loop

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the retarded vector potential \textbf{A} for a wire loop as presented in Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3e". The user initially misinterprets the line integral over the inner semi-circle, leading to confusion regarding its dimensional consistency. After clarification, it is established that the correct expression for the integral is \int_{inner} d\textbf{l} = 2a\hat{x}, aligning with the provided solution. The conversation emphasizes the importance of vector addition in line integrals and the correct interpretation of dimensional analysis in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, particularly line integrals.
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic theory, specifically retarded potentials.
  • Knowledge of Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3e".
  • Basic proficiency in dimensional analysis in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study vector calculus applications in electromagnetism, focusing on line integrals.
  • Review the concept of retarded potentials in electromagnetic theory.
  • Examine examples of dimensional analysis in physics problems.
  • Explore Griffiths' textbook for additional problems related to vector potentials.
USEFUL FOR

Students of electromagnetism, physics educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of vector potentials and line integrals in electromagnetic contexts.

delyle
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



This is the problem 10.10 in Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3e

(See attached image)

I am only concerned about finding the retarded vector potential \textbf{A}

Homework Equations



\textbf{A}(r',t) = \frac{\mu_{0}}{4\pi} \int \frac{ \textbf{I}(t_{r}) dl}{r'}
t_{r} = t - r'/c


The Attempt at a Solution



I got this far:

\textbf{A}(r',t) = \frac{\mu_{0}k}{4\pi} \left[ t \int \frac{\textbf{dl}}{r'} + \int \frac{\textbf{dl}}{c} \right]

Which matches the given solution. My next step would be to take the first integral and divide it into components, that is, take the line integral over the inner semi circle, the outer semi circle, and the two linear components on the x-axis separately. For the line integral over the inner circle, I would take,

\int_{inner} \frac{\textbf{dl}}{r'} = -\hat{\theta} \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{a d\theta}{a}

which should be equal to -\pi \hat{\theta} (r' is a in this case because we want to find the potential at the centre). However, the solution says that

\int_{inner} \frac{\textbf{dl}}{r'} = 2a\hat{x}

The solution given for the outer integral is similar.

Either a) I've forgotten how to do line integrals (a distinct possibility), b) There is some physical reason for the solution given or c) the solution is incorrect.

I'd be very much obliged if someone could let me know what is going on for the solution given, and why my approach is incorrect.
 

Attachments

  • 1215121920-00.jpg
    1215121920-00.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 703
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello delyle. Welcome to PF!

In the integrals, dl is a vector. So the integration corresponds to vector addition. You should consider 2 integrals, one for adding the x-components of dl to find the x-component of A and another integral for the y-component.Note that \int_{inner} \frac{\textbf{dl}}{r'} = 2a\hat{x} is dimensionally inconsistent. The left side is dimensionless while the right side has dimension of length.
 
Hello TSny,

Thank you for your reply. I think I understand now. As far as the dimensional inconsistency, I had made a mistake in my explanation; the solution said that \int_{inner} d\textbf{l} =2a\hat{x}, which makes more sense, dimensionally.

So, let's see if I follow you. Explicitly, -d\textbf{l} = a\sin(\theta)d\theta\hat{x} - a\cos(\theta)d\theta\hat{y}, and so the integral \int_{inner} d\textbf{l} can be rewritten as a\int_{0}^{\pi} \left[\sin(\theta)\hat{x} - \cos(\theta)\hat{y} \right]d\theta. The integral over cos is 0, so we're left with \int_{inner} d\textbf{l} = 2a\hat{x}, which is consistent with the solution. Thanks a ton!
 
That's essentially it. I'm not sure I see your choice of signs, but that might have to do with how you're defining the positive direction of θ. dl points in the same direction as the current. So along the arc of radius a, dl should have a positive x-component, but you wrote -dl as having a positive x-component (I think). Anyway, your result looks good. :smile:
 
Yes, you're right. That minus sign in front of d\textbf{l} should be removed
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K