Vector calculus identities and maxwell equations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between vector calculus identities and Maxwell's equations, specifically addressing the identity \nabla\times\nabla\phi = 0 and its implications for the electric field \textbf{E}. The confusion arises when substituting \textbf{E} = -\nabla\phi into Maxwell's equation \nabla\times \textbf{E} = -\frac{d\textbf{B}}{dt}, leading to a contradiction. The resolution involves recognizing that \textbf{E} can also be expressed as \textbf{E} = -\nabla\phi - \frac{d\textbf{A}}{dt}, where \textbf{B} = \nabla\times\textbf{A}, thus providing a more comprehensive definition of the electric field that aligns with Maxwell's equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus identities, particularly curl and gradient operations.
  • Familiarity with Maxwell's equations, especially the relationship between electric and magnetic fields.
  • Knowledge of conservative fields and the concept of electric potential.
  • Basic understanding of gauge transformations in electromagnetism.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the curl operator in vector calculus.
  • Explore the derivation and applications of Maxwell's equations in electromagnetism.
  • Investigate the concept of gauge invariance and its role in electromagnetic theory.
  • Learn about the relationship between electric fields and potentials in various coordinate systems.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electromagnetism who seek to deepen their understanding of vector calculus in relation to Maxwell's equations.

Reloaded47
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
so we have the identity
[itex]\nabla\times\nabla\phi = 0[/itex]

and from Maxwell's equations we have
[itex]\nabla\times \textbf{E} = -\frac{d\textbf{B}}{dt}[/itex]

But we also have that
[itex]\textbf{E} = -\nabla\phi[/itex]


So the problem I'm having is this
[itex]-\textbf{E} = \nabla\phi[/itex]

which i substitute into the identity
[itex]\nabla\times -\textbf{E} = - ( \nabla\times\textbf{E} ) = 0[/itex]

But this should be
[itex]\nabla\times - \textbf{E} = \frac{d\textbf{B}}{dt}[/itex]
according to maxwell's equations, not zero
which is why I am getting confused

i think there is a good chance I've done somehing silly, i just need someone to point it out
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Never mind i figured it out

[itex]\textbf{E} = - \nabla\phi - \frac{d\textbf{A}}{dt}[/itex]

where

[itex]\textbf{B} = \nabla\times\textbf{A}[/itex]
 
Yours is a good question. The fact is that you define a potential [itex]\phi[/itex] if the field Eis conservative. But a field is conservative if its rotor is zero (irrotational).

This means that considering Maxwell's equation [itex]\nabla \cross \vec{E}=-\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}[/itex], you can argue that IF [itex]-\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}=0[/itex] then you can define [itex]\phi\backepsilon' \vec{E}=-\nabla\phi[/itex].

However, if you define [itex]\vec{B}=\nabla\cross\vec{A}[/itex], you could write [itex]\nabla \cross \vec{E}=-\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\nabla\cross\vec{A}\Rightarrow \nabla\cross\{\vec{E}+\frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}\}=0[/itex] so that the field [itex]\vec{E}+\frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}[/itex] is irrotational, then conservative, so that [itex]\vec{E}+\frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}=-\nabla\phi\Rightarrow\vec{E}=-\nabla\phi-\frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}[/itex]

This is a more general definition of the potential of the electric field that fits with Maxwell's equations. However, there is a term missing in my last expression related to a gauge transformation, but since it is a term related to the frame of reference, setting proper condition it can be put to zero.
 

Similar threads

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