What does curl E = const. on Ω say about E on ∂Ω?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManDay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curl
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the implications of the conditions "curl E = const." and "∇E = 0" for the electric field E in a simply connected domain Ω and its boundary ∂Ω. It highlights that these conditions impose specific restrictions on the boundary conditions (BCs) on the remainder of the domain, Π. By applying Stokes' theorem, the relationship between the integral of E along ∂Ω and the constant curl is examined, suggesting that simply satisfying the integral does not guarantee compliance with the original conditions. The context involves a conductor in a changing magnetic field, raising questions about how these conditions translate into boundary conditions for the conductor's domain. Ultimately, the discussion acknowledges the complexity of deriving simple boundary conditions from the given assumptions and Maxwell's equations.
ManDay
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
What does "curl E = const." on Ω say about E on ∂Ω?

Assume I have a simply connected domain Ω and a twice differentiable vector field E for which I know that "∇×E = const." (1) and "∇E = 0" (2) on Ω - I am interested in solving a BC Problem on ∏ = (Ʃ ⊃ Ω)\Ω, the remainder of Ʃ less Ω.

(1) and (2) imply certain restrictions on the BC on ∏. Question:

Which are the restrictions equivalent to (1) and (2)?

By Stokes' theorem, ∫dr·E = ∫dA·const. along the boundary of ∂Ω, but that alone can't possibly be equivalent, can it? I might pick an E which satisfies a certain curve integral value along ∂Ω and which can't satisfy (1) and (2), I assume.

Context: A conductor is forming a loop the hole in which is pierced by a changing magnetic field - how this can be re-formulated into BCs on the conductor's domain? Can it, at all?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Starting with the assumptions 1,2 and Maxwell's equations, I do not see how one could arrive at simple boundary conditions. Probably many different boundary conditions are possible.

On the other hand, for metallic ring in slowly changing magnetic field, the boundary conditions on its surface are known. The electric field E has continuous tangential component, and the normal component has jump proportional to surface charge density. The magnetic field B has continuous normal component, and the tangential component has jump proportional to surface current density. Inside the metallic ring, the current density may be assumed to be proportional to electric field (Ohm's law).
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top