Vectorpotential as a function of (t- x/c)

  • Thread starter Thread starter silverwhale
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
silverwhale
Messages
78
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



I am working through chapter 47 of the Landau Lifschitz. And there is the following argument:

The vector potential is a function of t - \frac{x}{c}
From the defining equations for the electric and magnetic fields:
\vec{E} = - \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}, \vec{B} = \nabla \times \vec{A}
follows
\vec{E} = - \frac{1}{c} \vec{A'}
\vec{B} = \nabla \times \vec{A} = \nabla (t- \frac{x}{c}) \times \vec{A'} = - \frac{1}{c} \vec{n} \times \vec{A'}
\vec{B} = \vec{n} \times \vec{E}

I can't follow his argument.
Why did the equation for the electric field change from a time derivative of A to a derivative over (t- x/c).
And where does that \nabla (t - x/c) come from?
Finally where does that vector n come from?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
silverwhale said:

Homework Statement



I am working through chapter 47 of the Landau Lifschitz. And there is the following argument:

The vector potential is a function of t - \frac{x}{c}
From the defining equations for the electric and magnetic fields:
\vec{E} = - \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}, \vec{B} = \nabla \times \vec{A}
follows
\vec{E} = - \frac{1}{c} \vec{A'}
\vec{B} = \nabla \times \vec{A} = \nabla (t- \frac{x}{c}) \times \vec{A'} = - \frac{1}{c} \vec{n} \times \vec{A'}
\vec{B} = \vec{n} \times \vec{E}

I can't follow his argument.
Why did the equation for the electric field change from a time derivative of A to a derivative over (t- x/c).

Let's define t_r\equiv t-\frac{x}{c}. Then apply the chain rule:

\begin{aligned}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\textbf{A}(\textbf{x},t_r) &= \frac{\partial t_r}{\partial t}\frac{\partial}{\partial t_r}\textbf{A}(\textbf{x},t_r)+ \frac{\partial \textbf{x}}{\partial t}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}\left(\textbf{A}(\textbf{x},t_r)\right) \\ &= (1)\textbf{A}'(\textbf{x},t_r)+(\mathbf{0})\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}\left(\textbf{A}(\textbf{x},t_r)\right) \\ &= \textbf{A}'(\textbf{x},t_r)\end{aligned}

And where does that \nabla (t - x/c) come from?Finally where does that vector n come from?

Again, use the chain rule: In index notation w/ Einstein summation convention,

\begin{aligned}\mathbf{\nabla}\times\textbf{A}(\textbf{x},t_r) &= \textbf{e}_i\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_j A_k(\textbf{x},t_r) \\ &= \textbf{e}_i\epsilon_{ijk}\left[(\partial_j\textbf{x})\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}A_k(\textbf{x},t)\right]_{t=t_r} + \textbf{e}_i\epsilon_{ijk}\frac{\partial}{\partial t_r} A_k(x_m\textbf{e}_m,t_r) \partial_j t_r \\ &= \textbf{e}_i\epsilon_{ijk}\left[\textbf{e}_j\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}A_k(\textbf{x},t)\right]_{t=t_r}+ (\mathbf{\nabla}t_r)\times\textbf{A}(x_m\textbf{e}_m,t_r) \\ & = \left[\mathbf{\nabla}\times\textbf{A}(x_m\textbf{e}_m,t)\right]_{t=t_r} -\frac{1}{c} (\mathbf{\nabla}x)\times\textbf{A}(x_m\textbf{e}_m,t_r) \\ & =\end{aligned}

I don't have the text with me, but it looks like Landau is describing a case where radiation is emitted in the \textbf{n}\equiv \mathbf{\nabla}x direction, and you are only interested in a region where the non-retarded magnetic field is zero.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top