Use Maxwell's Equations to derive one law from another

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the derivation of Electric Gauss's Law (\nabla \cdot D = \rho_f) from Generalized Ampere's Law (\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}). Participants clarify that these laws are distinct and cannot be directly derived from one another. The conversation emphasizes the need for integral forms and the application of Gauss's and Stokes' theorems to approach the problem correctly. The conclusion is that while the laws are related, they require different mathematical frameworks for their derivation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Maxwell's Equations
  • Familiarity with Gauss's Theorem
  • Knowledge of Stokes' Theorem
  • Basic concepts of vector calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the integral forms of Maxwell's Equations
  • Learn how to apply Gauss's Theorem in electromagnetism
  • Explore Stokes' Theorem and its applications in vector calculus
  • Review the continuity equation in the context of electromagnetism
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, electrical engineers, and anyone studying electromagnetism who seeks to understand the relationships between Maxwell's laws and their mathematical derivations.

Cursed
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Derive equation (1) from equation (2):

(1) \nabla \cdot D = \rho_f
(2) \nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}

Homework Equations



[PLAIN]http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4645/maxwell.png

The Attempt at a Solution



\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}
\nabla \cdot (\nabla \times H) = \nabla \cdot (J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t})
0 = \nabla \cdot J \frac{\partial \rho_f}{\partial t} (This is assuming no source or sink.)
-\nabla \cdot J = \frac{\partial \rho_f}{\partial t}

Now I'm stuck at the continuity equation. How do I prove that \int-\nabla \cdot J = \nabla \cdot D? (What I want to do is take the integral of both sides.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Cursed! Welcome to PF! :smile:

Your 2 equations are 2 different laws of Maxwell.
One can not be derived from the other (otherwise Maxwell wouldn't have defined them as separate laws).

Is it possible that the problem asks to derive the integral form of the law?
That is something you can do.
 
Well, the problem asks for us to derive the equations as they are, but if integrals are necessary, I can try that. I just didn't know if I had to use integrals or not.

How would I go about starting that?


\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}
\int H \cdot dl = I_f,s + \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial t}

What do I do then? I know that \Phi = \frac{d}{dt} \int B \cdot ds, but using that doesn't seem right.
 
For equation (1) you would need Gauss's theorem for integrals.
For equation (2) you would need Stoke's theorem for integrals.

Are you familiar with those?
You can find them e.g. on wikipedia...
 
Even if I use the divergence theorem and Stokes' Theorem, I get stuck:

\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}

\int\int_s (\nabla \times H) \cdot ds = \int\int_s J \cdot ds + \int\int_s \frac{\partial D}{\partial t} \cdot ds

\oint_c H \cdot dl = \int\int_s J \cdot ds + \int\int\int_v (\nabla \cdot D) \cdot ds
 
Last edited:
Cursed said:
Even if I use the divergence theorem and Stokes' Theorem, I get stuck:

\nabla \times H = J + \frac{\partial D}{\partial t}

\int\int_s (\nabla \times H) \cdot ds = \int\int_s J \cdot ds + \int\int_s \frac{\partial D}{\partial t} \cdot ds

\oint_c H \cdot dl = \int\int_s J \cdot ds + \int\int\int_v (\nabla \cdot D) \cdot ds

Ah, right, you know the basics of those theorems. :)
However, you're not applying them quite right yet.

For starters, they are never both applicable at the same time.

The thing is, Gauss and divergence work on a volume and the closed surface around that volume. It is not applicable here.
Stokes and curl work on a surface and the close loop curve around that surface.

Now if you look at the surface integral of the current density J through the surface, you need to realize that this is actually the total current going through the surface.
Equivalently you need to interpret the surface integral over ∂D/∂t.
Do you see?

You just did equation (2). Actually equation (1) is a little easier.
Again you need to consider what the integral over the volume actually is.

Cheers! :smile:Edit: btw, I'm still not sure that I understand your problem statement properly.
If it is what I think you're saying, they would be asking for the reverse, that is, to show that the equations can be derived from their equivalent integral form.
 
\oint_c H \cdot dl = \int\int_s J \cdot ds +\frac{\partial (\int_v (\nabla \cdot D) \cdot dV)}{\partial t}

You forgot the partial derivative with respect to time.

ehild
 
It says to derive the Electric Gauss Law (1) from Generalized Ampere's Law (2).

What is the appropriate way to apply Stokes' theorem? I'm confused.

Thanks for both of your help, by the way. I greatly appreciate it.
 
Cursed said:
It says to derive the Electric Gauss Law (1) from Generalized Ampere's Law (2).

I'm sorry, but it can't be done as I explained before.
Your problem statement must be off.

Now if you want to derive your equations from:

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/0/c/30c5316a93681d924ba53461f05ab521.png[/URL]​

we can start talking again. :smile:



Cursed said:
What is the appropriate way to apply Stokes' theorem? I'm confused.

Thanks for both of your help, by the way. I greatly appreciate it.

Your formula for Φ is off.
It should be:

\Phi_{D,S} = \iint_S D \cdot ds

That should also give you a hint how to complete the way to apply Stokes' theorem... :wink:


Btw, I appreciate your thanks. All too often we don't get any. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K