Where is the Error in My Derivation of the Magnetic Field Equation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the magnetic field equation from the vector potential, specifically the equation for the magnetic field in terms of the potential. The author attempts to derive the equation but finds a discrepancy between their result and the one presented in the reference book, which is attributed to the metric convention used. They conclude that their derived equation, which includes a sign difference, is indeed correct based on the calculations shared. The conversation highlights the importance of verifying formulas in reference texts, as they may contain errors. Ultimately, the author is reassured that their derivation aligns with the correct interpretation of the equations.
Gaussian97
Homework Helper
Messages
683
Reaction score
412
As I said my goal is to derive the equation ##\tilde{B}^k(\vec{q})=-i\varepsilon^{ijk}q^i\tilde{A}^j_{cl}(\vec{q})##

As far as I know, the magnetic field is defined using the potential as ##\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}##

Then in equation 6.6 they define ##A^\mu(x)=\int \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\tilde{A}^\mu(\vec{k})e^{-ikx}\text{d}^3 k## and an equivalent equation for ##\vec{B}##. So, using the definition
$$B^k=\varepsilon^{kij}\partial_i A^j=\int \frac{\varepsilon^{kij}}{(2\pi)^3}\tilde{A}^j(\vec{q})\partial_ie^{-iqx}\text{d}^3 q=\int \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\left[\varepsilon^{kij}\tilde{A}^j(\vec{q})(-iq_i)\right]e^{-iqx}\text{d}^3 q\Longrightarrow \tilde{B}^k=-i\varepsilon^{ijk}q_i\tilde{A}^j(\vec{q})$$

But this is not the equation the book gives, because we are using the metric ##(+---)## and then ##q^i=-q_i## so the equation I get is $$\tilde{B}^k=i\varepsilon^{ijk}q^i\tilde{A}^j(\vec{q})$$

Someone can tell me where is my error?

Thank you very much :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's do it in the 3D formalism first. The integrand is
##\vec{A}_{\vec{q}}(x)=\vec{\tilde{A}}(\vec{q}) \exp(-\mathrm{i} q x)=\vec{\tilde{A}}(\vec{q}) \exp(-\mathrm{i} k t + \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}),
##
from which
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}_{\vec{q}}(x)=-\vec{\tilde{A}}(\vec{q}) \times \exp(-\mathrm{i} q^0 t + \mathrm{i} \vec{q} \cdot \vec{x})=-\vec{\tilde{A}}(\vec{q}) \times \mathrm{i} \vec{q} \exp(-\mathrm{i} q^0 t + \mathrm{i} \vec{q} \cdot \vec{x})=\vec{\tilde{B}}_{\vec{q}} \exp(-\mathrm{i} q^0 t + \mathrm{i} \vec{q} \cdot \vec{x}).$$
In the Ricci calculus this reads
$$\tilde{B}^k=-\mathrm{i} \epsilon^{ijk} \tilde{A}_{\vec{q}}^i q^j=+\mathrm{i} \epsilon^{ijk} q^i \tilde{A}_{\vec{q}}^j.$$
So you are right.

Note that Peskin and Schroeder is full of typos. You always have to check any formula yourself ;-)).
 
  • Like
Likes Gaussian97
Ok, thank you very much
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top