Using ampere's law for a circular loop

Click For Summary
Ampere's Law can be misleading when applied to a circular loop because the contributions to the magnetic field from opposite segments of the loop can cancel each other out, leading to an enclosed current of zero. This results in the integral of the magnetic field over the loop appearing to be zero, but this does not imply that the magnetic field itself is zero everywhere. The discussion clarifies that the line integral should be considered over the loop where the magnetic field is constant and perpendicular to the path of integration. Properly applying the dot product in the context of Ampere's Law is crucial to avoid confusion about the magnetic field's behavior. Understanding the symmetry and directionality of the magnetic field is essential for accurate calculations.
Essence
Messages
38
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


Sorry to bother you guys,

I've heard that Ampere's Law is either ineffective for calculating the B field due to a circular loop or needs some modification (I wasn't sure which).

I'm trying to figure out why this doesn't work so I can get a better understanding of Ampere's Law. I have attached a picture of two loops (probably trivial). The inner loop is the one with a current the outer loop is the surface I chose for Ampere's Law.

I know you guys have to deal without a lot of dang so I hope I haven't imposed too much.

Thanks,

Homework Equations


(integral) Bdl = u * I

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
To be more concrete about this whole thing imagine I had a looped wire with current I. I will now use Ampere's Law. First I will choose a surface which is another circular loop that contains the first loop. Now I will use:
(integral) B dl = u * I. Since each piece of current in the loop has another piece of current going in the opposite direction (it's a circle after all). I should get an I enclosed of 0. This would suggest the B field is zero (which I could justify using the Biot-Savart law isn't true). For space I will not do that here; that's a number plugging game.
 

Attachments

  • Two loops.png
    Two loops.png
    1.5 KB · Views: 662
Physics news on Phys.org
Not so much a number game as a vector game.
It is not so that ##\oint \vec B\cdot \vec{dl} = 0\quad \Rightarrow \quad |\vec B| = 0 ##.
 
BvU said:
Not so much a number game as a vector game.
It is not so that ##\oint \vec B\cdot \vec{dl} = 0\quad \Rightarrow \quad |\vec B| = 0 ##.
I think I get it. Since the B fields may be opposite at some points if I integrate the B fields over the surface I will get zero. But if I'm to find a specific B field at a location since B is not a constant function (it flips signs) I can't just divide by 2* pi * r and get 0. This is because the result of taking the integral is not B * 2pi * r (again because B is changing and so can't be treated like a constant).
 
Last edited:
I think you have the wrong picture of the situation

Re pictures: Perhaps google "magnetic field of current loop" and look at some of the pictures.

Re Ampere's law: the integral is not a surface integral but a line integral: ##\vec {dl}## is a little section of the wire, so to say.
(But, considering you do write "the result of taking the integral is not ##B\ 2\pi r##", it appears you have the right intention but just use the term "integrate the B fields over the surface" a little sloppy ? -- "B field over the loop" would be better)

Combining the two: From the pictures and the circular symmetry you can see that at the location of the outer loop wire ##\vec B## is in fact a constant, and the direction is perpendicular to the plane of the two wire loops. No flipping sign, no "opposite at some points".

Since ##\vec {dl}## is in that plane, the inner product ## \vec B\cdot \vec{dl} = 0 ## and that is what makes the ##\oint\ ## come out as zero.

--
 
Last edited:
Ok.
(Just confirming)
$$\vec{B}\cdot\vec{dl}$$ will equal zero (because we're taking a dot product of perpendicular vectors) but this does not mean B equals zero. Ideally we want to choose a loop where B is in the same direction as dl such that we can just divide by the distance over which the line integral is taking place to get B.

Sorry about earlier; that was very very sloppy. I did mean line integral rather than surface integral, and I had temporarily assumed that the B field switched from into the page to out of the page depending on what side of the loop you were on. I didn't actually check this with greater care because I assumed that that was the only thing that could cause issues, but I hadn't considered the dot product.

Thanks,
 
Last edited:
(can't delete posts)
 
Last edited:
I think you are doing just fine. Ok you are !
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K