Retarded potential of a wire loop

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves finding the retarded vector potential \textbf{A} for a wire loop, as presented in Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics. The original poster is focused on the line integrals required to compute \textbf{A} and is comparing their approach to a provided solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compute the line integrals for the inner and outer semicircles of the wire loop but encounters discrepancies with the provided solution. They question whether their understanding of line integrals is correct or if there is a physical reason for the differences.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in clarifying the vector nature of the line integrals and discussing dimensional consistency. Some guidance has been offered regarding the correct interpretation of the integrals and the components involved, with acknowledgment of the original poster's progress in understanding the solution.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the signs in the vector components and the dimensional consistency of the integrals, which are being actively discussed. The original poster's initial interpretation of the integrals is being reassessed in light of participant feedback.

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: 712
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
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · 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