How can I solve this tough integral equation for a dipole magnetic field?

In summary: B}_0.In summary, your equation has the trivial solution B = 0, and that might be your only solution. You can try to solve it numerically, but you might not be able to get a nice, easy to get analytical expression. However, if you differentiate both sides and use the Gradient Theorem, you can solve for the scalar correction to the magnitude of B.
  • #1
vibe3
46
1
Hi, I have an integral equation for which I'd appreciate any tips! The equation is:

[tex]
B^2(\vec{r}) = \int_{\vec{r}}^{\infty} \left[ (\vec{B}(\vec{s}) \cdot \nabla) \vec{B}(\vec{s}) \right] \cdot \vec{ds}
[/tex]

The path of integration can be chosen arbitrarily, starting at some point r, and ending at infinity (where B = 0). B can be thought of as a dipole magnetic field.

I've tried expanding the integrand into its components along and normal to the field lines, and choosing ds to be a path always normal to the field lines. This yields the following equation:

[tex]
B^2(\vec{r}) = -\int_{\vec{r}}^{\infty} \frac{B^2(\vec{s})}{R_c(\vec{s})} ds
[/tex]

where R_c is the radius of curvature of the field line at the point s. But here it seems difficult to continue without numerical assistance. Anyone have any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would try to solve that numerically before you put any great effort into getting an (approximate) analytical expression. Your integral equation has the trivial solution B = 0, and that might be your only solution. It's worth your time to set up a numerical solution anyways, because there may not be a nice, easy to get analytical expression.

However, if I were to try to see if I could find a closed-form expression, then because the variable r only appears as part of the limits of the integral, at least in the simplified expression, you might be able to differentiate both sides and derive a differential equation for B^2. (I would do B^2 rather than B because your simplified integral equation is linear in B^2 but non-linear in B). You still might not be able to solve the equation, though, and I'm not sure how nice everything will turn out because it's a multi-dimensional integral.
 
  • #3
I have a solution, but mine is off from your's by a sign and a factor of 2. They key is the vector identity

[itex] \nabla (\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}) = \vec{A}\times(\nabla\times\vec{B}) + \vec{B}\times(\nabla\times\vec{A}) + (\vec{A}\cdot\nabla)\vec{B} + (\vec{B}\cdot\nabla)\vec{A} [/itex].

We also use the fact that [itex] \vec{B} [/itex] is the magnetic field from a dipole (which I assume is not osscilating). This implies that

[itex] \nabla\times\vec{B} = \displaystyle\frac{\partial \vec{E}}{\partial t} + \vec{J} = 0 [/itex],

since the fields are constant in time [itex] \left(\displaystyle\frac{\partial\vec{E}}{\partial t} = 0 \right)[/itex] and there is no current [itex] \left( \vec{J}=0 \right) [/itex]. This alows us to rewrite the right hand side of your equation as

[itex] \displaystyle\int_{\vec{r}}^{\infty} \left[\left(\vec{B}(\vec{s})\cdot\nabla\right)\vec{B} (\vec{s}) \right] \cdot d\vec{s} = \displaystyle\int_{\vec{r}}^{\infty} \left[ \frac{\nabla B^2}{2} - \vec{B}\times(\underbrace{\nabla\times\vec{B}}_0) \right]\cdot d\vec{s} = \frac{B^2(\infty)}{2}-\frac{B^2(\vec{r})}{2} = -\frac{B^2(\vec{r})}{2} [/itex],

where we have used the Gradient Theorem and the fact that the dipole field goes to zero at infinity.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Thanks for your solution, UA, but unfortunately there is a current which is not 0. My original statement was an attempt to solve the integral which comes up in the physical problem which I didn't describe very well. The actual problem is as follows.

Consider a dipole field [itex]\vec{B}_0[/itex], where plasma is then introduced to the system and allowed to reach an equilibrium state. In this equilibrium state, there will be a diamagnetic current which satisfies
[tex]
\nabla P = \vec{J} \times \vec{B}
[/tex]
where P = nkT is the plasma pressure, J is the current, and B is the total field:
[tex]
\vec{B} = \vec{B}_0 + \vec{B}_d
[/tex]
and [itex]\vec{B}_d[/itex] is the field due to the diamagnetic current J. Using
[tex]
\vec{J} = \frac{1}{\mu_0} \nabla \times \vec{B}
[/tex]
as well as the identity you quoted, the equation becomes
[tex]
\nabla \left( P + \frac{B^2}{2 \mu_0} \right) = \frac{1}{\mu_0} \left( \vec{B} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{B}
[/tex]
Dotting both sides by a path length [itex]\vec{ds}[/itex] and then integrating along some path starting at the point of interest [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] and ending at infinity where all the fields go to 0, allows us to use the gradient theorem on the LHS of the equation:
[tex]
P(\vec{r}) + \frac{B^2(\vec{r})}{2\mu_0} = -\frac{1}{\mu_0} \int_{\vec{r}}^{\infty} (\vec{B}(\vec{s}) \cdot \nabla) \vec{B}(\vec{s}) \cdot \vec{ds}
[/tex]
which was my original equation, except I left out the pressure P term for simplicity.

I think that this equation cannot in general be solved for [itex]\vec{B}[/itex], but I would be happy if there was a way to use perturbation theory to solve for the scalar correction to the magnitude of B. IE: if
[tex]
B = B_0 + b
[/tex]
where b is the perturbation/correction to the dipole field magnitude due to the diamagnetic current J. I would be happy with either a solution for [itex]b[/itex] where you can neglect [itex]b^2[/itex] terms, or a full solution for [itex]\vec{B}[/itex]

If it helps, the following identity is true:
[tex]
(\vec{B} \cdot \nabla) \vec{B} = \frac{d}{db} \left( \frac{B^2}{2} \right) \hat{b} - \frac{B^2}{R_c} \hat{n}
[/tex]
where [itex]\hat{b}[/itex] is a unit vector along the field line, [itex]\hat{n}[/itex] is normal to the field line and directed anti-radially, and [itex]R_c[/itex] is the radius of curvature of the field line. Because of the derivative in the first term, I thought at first it might be best to integrated along a field line rather than integrate to infinity. This makes it possible to solve the integral, but then you end up with a solution dependent on the second point you choose in the integral which doesn't seem right.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Use the "method of moments" aka the method of weighted residuals.
 
  • #6
Antiphon said:
Use the "method of moments" aka the method of weighted residuals.

I don't understand how that will help...?
 

What is a tough integral equation?

A tough integral equation is a mathematical equation that involves integrals, which are mathematical operations that compute the area under a curve. These equations can be difficult to solve because they often involve complex functions and require advanced mathematical techniques.

Why are tough integral equations important?

Tough integral equations are important in many fields of science, including physics, engineering, and economics. They allow researchers to model complex systems and make predictions about their behavior. Solving tough integral equations can also lead to new insights and discoveries.

What are some common techniques for solving tough integral equations?

Some common techniques for solving tough integral equations include using substitution, integration by parts, and applying specific integration rules such as the power rule or trigonometric identities. Other techniques may involve using numerical methods or computer algorithms.

How can I improve my skills in solving tough integral equations?

To improve your skills in solving tough integral equations, it is important to have a strong understanding of basic calculus concepts and techniques. Practice solving various types of equations and seek guidance from a mentor or tutor if needed. It can also be helpful to read textbooks and research articles on the topic to gain a deeper understanding of the subject.

Are there any online resources or tools available for solving tough integral equations?

Yes, there are many online resources and tools available for solving tough integral equations. These include online calculators, mathematical software programs, and educational websites that offer tutorials and practice problems. It is important to use these resources responsibly and to always check your work for accuracy.

Similar threads

  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
949
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
25
Views
259
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
102
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
333
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
142
Replies
1
Views
350
Replies
8
Views
446
Replies
8
Views
531
Back
Top