Source terms in Maxwell's Equations and retarded positions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of retarded potentials in Maxwell's Equations, specifically questioning why the equations do not explicitly include retarded charge density (\rho_r) and retarded current density (\textbf{J}_r). It highlights that for accelerating charge distributions, retarded potentials are necessary to accurately derive the electric and magnetic fields. The author notes that using the integral forms of the equations reveals that instantaneous changes in current do not immediately affect distant fields, leading to zero contributions at large distances. Additionally, the conversation touches on the relationship between changing current and the resulting electromagnetic fields, suggesting that the displacement current and actual current may cancel each other out until radiation propagates. The discussion concludes by emphasizing the local nature of differential forms in Maxwell's Equations.
Smacal1072
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

Thanks again to all the great mentors and contributors to this forum.

I wanted to ask a question about the Gauss's law/Ampere's law equations in Maxwell's Equations:

<br /> <br /> \nabla \bullet \textbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}<br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> \nabla \times \textbf{B} = \mu \left( \textbf{J} + \epsilon \frac{\partial\textbf{E}}{\partial t} \right)<br />

For charge distributions or currents that are accelerating, I was taught that you need to consider the retarded potentials in order to derive the fields. Why are Maxwell's Equations not written like this:

<br /> <br /> \nabla \bullet \textbf{E} = \frac{\rho_r}{\epsilon_0}<br /> \\<br /> \\<br /> \nabla \times \textbf{B} = \mu \left( \textbf{J}_r + \epsilon \frac{\partial\textbf{E}}{\partial t} \right)<br />

Where \textbf{J}_r \mbox{ and } \rho_r are the retarded charge and retarded current density?

Edit: In retrospect, I should have used the integral version of the equations, in particular:

<br /> \oint \textbf{B} \bullet dl = \mu_0 \iint \left( \textbf{J} + \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \textbf{E}}{\partial t} \right) \bullet d\textbf{S}<br />

For example, if we instantly switch on a current element at the origin at t = 0, then calculate \oint \textbf{B} \bullet dl at a radius of a million miles, we'll get zero, even though at that instant, a current may be flowing. Unless the current density and "displacement current" cancel out, the inequality won't hold...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There are some catches here. The differential forms don't have retarded potentials because they are, by definition, locally defined.

And as soon as you turn the current on, what makes you think dE/dt is zero? increasing J creates an increasing rot(B) which creates an increasing rot(E), and dE/dt should be in the opposite direction of the original increase in current. I'm not sure how these actually manifest in the retarded potential, but my lazy guess is that J and e0*dE/dt will cancel until the resulting EM radiation reaches your loop integral.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top