Understanding the Equation B = del x A in Electromagnetic Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter lalligagger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Del Mean
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the equation B = ∇ x A, which is central to electromagnetic theory and relates magnetic fields to vector potentials. The user seeks clarification on the physical interpretation of A, questioning whether it represents a real force field or is merely an arbitrary construct due to the divergence-free nature of B. There is mention of Gauss's Law for magnetic fields, indicating that the error in the proof does not stem from this equation. The conversation also touches on the application of Stokes' theorem in solving the problem. Overall, understanding the vector potential A is crucial for tackling the homework question effectively.
lalligagger
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Not going to write out the whole problem (yet). It's a "find the error in the incorrect proof" type of question in a section on curl and divergence.

Homework Equations



B = \nablax A is given as an equation of "electromagnetic theory" and used in the proof. It's stated that the error is not in this equation. The other equation used in the proof is Gauss's Law for magnetic fields, but I get that one.

The Attempt at a Solution



Haven't really tried; I'd like to know the physical interpretation of the above equation before I start staring at integrals. I just got through electricity and magnetism in my general physics course, but this doesn't look familiar. I'm assuming that A is some type of force field, but what field would satisfy the equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well μH = ∇ X A

Magnetic Force
 
Thanks Pion, but can you elaborate? What is μH and how does it relate to B?
BTW, this is for a course that basically covers vector calculus that our math department doesn't in early calc classes. The question is really just about applying Stoke's theorem, which I understand pretty well. It's just the one equation that I don't get is keeping me from even starting the problem.
I can try and scan the problem if more context is needed, but it's nothing I want to write out here.
 
Ok, A is the vector potential of B. Does A have any physical meaning or is it just an arbitrary vector that must exist because \nabla\bulletB=0?
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top