Stokes' Theorem and Maxwell's Equations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around applying Stokes' theorem to derive the differential form of Faraday's Law from its integral form, which is part of Maxwell's equations. The participants are exploring the relationship between electric fields and magnetic flux through surfaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of Stokes' theorem and the correct formulation of Faraday's Law. There are attempts to manipulate integrals and clarify the roles of closed path integrals versus surface integrals. Questions arise about the validity of certain steps and the implications of vector calculus notation.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the correct application of Stokes' theorem and the need for careful notation in vector calculus. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationships between the equations, with no explicit consensus reached on the final form of the equations.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating potential misunderstandings regarding the conditions under which integrals can be manipulated, particularly in the context of vector fields and their derivatives. There is also a focus on ensuring clarity in mathematical expressions and notation.

TFM
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Faraday’s Law can be written as:

[tex]\oint_P \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dl} = -\frac{d}{dt}\Phi[/tex]

Where [tex]\Phi[/tex] is the magnetic flux. Use Stokes’ theorem to obtain the equvilant Maxwell equation (i.e. Faraday’s Law in differential form).


Homework Equations



Stokes' Law:

[tex]\int_{\partial s}F \cdot ds = \int_P (\nabla \times F) \cdot da[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



So far, I have:

[tex]\int_{\partial s}F \cdot ds = \int_S (\nabla \times F) \cdot da[/tex]

[tex]\int_{P}E \cdot dl = \int_S (\nabla \times E) \cdot da = \frac{d}{dt}\Phi[/tex]

Does this look like I'm doing it right?

TFM
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks fine, except your missing a negative sign in yur last expression and the path integrals in Stokes Law are always closed path integrals : [tex]\oint_{\mathcal{P}}[/tex] ...Now use the definition of 'magnetic flux' through a surface.
 


So:

[tex]\oint_{P}E \cdot dl = \oint_S (\nabla \times E) \cdot da = -\frac{d}{dt}\Phi[/tex]

Magnetic Flux through a surface:

[tex]\Phi = \int B \cdot da[/tex]

?

TFM
 
Yes, now put the two equations together.
 


I had a feeling that was going to be the next stage...

so:

[tex]\oint_S (\nabla \times E) \cdot da = -\frac{d}{dt}\Phi[/tex]

and

[tex]\Phi = \int B \cdot da[/tex]

thus:

[tex]\oint_S (\nabla \times E) \cdot da = -\frac{d}{dt} (\int B \cdot da)[/tex]

Since we have the interagal of da on both sides, can this cancel down to:

[tex]\nabla \times E = -\frac{d}{dt} B[/tex]

?

TFM
 
I have a feeling that this is what we are looking for... it is one of Maxwells Equations...
 
Technically, the reasoning should go like this: (1) since the integral on the right is over space, we can tke the time derivative inside the integral so we get:

[tex] \int_S (\nabla \times \vec{E}) \cdot \vec{da} = \int_S -\frac{d}{dt} ( \vec{B} \cdot \vec{da}) = \int_S -\frac{d \vec{B}}{dt} \cdot \vec{da}[/tex]

(2)Since this must hold true for any surface, the integrands must be equal...

[tex] \nabla \times \vec{E}= -\frac{d \vec{B}}{dt}[/tex]Saying "Since we have the interagal of da on both sides, can this cancel down to:" is not a very good argument; it sounds like a 'hand-waving' argument to me and probably says to the person marking your homework that you don't really understand vector calculus.

You also may have noticed that I added in arrws to show explicitly which quantities are vectors and which are scalars...without arrows or boldface letters or something to distinguish the two, you demonstrate to the teacher that you're not sure which are which.

Also, the surface integrals don't need to be closed, they are over any surface; that's why I have written them as [tex]\int_S[/tex] instead of [tex]\oint_S[/tex]...it's only the path integrals in Stokes' Law that need to be closed paths; since they are over the boundary of the surface, which is always a closed path even for an open surface.
 
Last edited:


I see. That does make sense

Thanks,

TFM
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K