Sign Conventions for Paths and Surfaces for Electromagnetic Calculations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on determining the correct sign conventions for paths and surfaces in electromagnetic calculations, particularly in relation to current density and potential differences. The integral form of Maxwell's Equations, specifically Faraday's Law, is highlighted to illustrate the importance of orientation when applying Stokes' theorem. The right-hand rule is established as the convention for defining the orientation of surfaces and their corresponding boundaries. This ensures consistency in calculations involving integrals over fixed surfaces and their boundaries.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Maxwell's Equations, particularly Faraday's Law
  • Familiarity with vector calculus and Stokes' theorem
  • Knowledge of electromagnetic theory, including current density and electric fields
  • Proficiency in mathematical integration techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the right-hand rule and its applications in electromagnetism
  • Learn about Stokes' theorem and its implications in vector calculus
  • Explore the integral and differential forms of Maxwell's Equations
  • Investigate the role of orientation in electromagnetic field calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, electrical engineering, and applied mathematics who are involved in electromagnetic theory and calculations.

Jessehk
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hello all.

I'm trying to figure out how to determine the correct sign of paths and surfaces defined for calculating quantities in electromagnetic problems.

For example, say there's a wire in the shape of a rectangular prism along the z-axis with some current density, [tex]\vec{J}[/tex].

Then the current through the wire is [tex]I = \int_S { \vec{J} \cdot \textrm{d} S }[/tex]. Now, [tex]\textrm{d} S = \textrm{d} x \textrm{d} y \hat{z}[/tex] but how can we know the sign of the normal to the cross-section? Is it in the -z direction (ie, [tex]-\hat{z}[/tex]) or the +z direction?

Similarly, the potential difference in an electrostatic field is [itex]V_{12} = - \int_2^1 \vec{E} \cdot \textrm{d} \gamma[/itex] but how do we define the sign of [itex]\textrm{d} \gamma[/itex]? For example, if both points are in the same axis, is the direction of the path from (1) to (2) or from (2) to (1)?

Is there a general rule? I apologize if this question is not clear, and thanks in advance. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are only sign problems if you consider the integral form of Maxwell's Equations. Take, e.g., Faraday's Law, which reads in differential form

[tex]\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}=-\partial_t \vec{B}.[/tex]

If you integrate this equation over a fixed (i.e., time independent) surface [tex]F[/tex] with boundary [tex]\partial F[/tex]. You can choose the orientation of the surface as you like or as is most convenient for you, but then you like to apply Stokes integral theorem, and then you have to orient the boundary in the same way as the surface. By convention, this is defined according to the right-hand rule: Point the thumb of your right hand in direction of the chosen surface normal (defining the orientation of the surface). Then the orientation of the boundary path in Stokes theorem is given by the direction of the fingers. With this convention, the integral form (for time-independent surfaces and boundaries) reads

[tex]\int_{\partial F} \mathrm{d} \vec{x} \cdot \vec{E}=-\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \int_F \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{F} \cdot \vec{B}[/tex].

BTW: For moving surfaces we recently had a big discussion in this forum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
951
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K