Why does (current density) dJ/dt=0?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the time derivative of current density, specifically questioning why the expression $$\mu_0\frac{∂\vec{J}}{∂t}=0$$ is considered in the context of deriving Maxwell's wave equation for the electric field. Participants are exploring the implications of this assumption, particularly in relation to the presence of accelerating charges in electromagnetic wave generation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand the conditions under which the time derivative of current density might be zero and how this relates to the derivation of Maxwell's equations. Questions are raised about the necessity of a non-zero current density for wave propagation and the role of the term in the equations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants expressing confusion about the disappearance of the $$\mu_0 \frac{∂\vec{J}}{∂t}$$ term in the context of the equations. Some participants are providing insights into the relationships between the equations, while others are seeking further clarification on the assumptions being made.

Contextual Notes

There appears to be a focus on the assumptions underlying the derivation of the wave equation, particularly regarding the behavior of current density in electromagnetic theory. The discussion highlights differing interpretations of the role of current density in wave propagation.

iScience
Messages
466
Reaction score
5
could someone explain to me why the the time derivative of current density J would be zero?

more specifically..

$$\mu_0\frac{∂\vec{J}}{∂t}=0$$


trying to derive maxwell's wave equation for E-field and i guess one of the assumptions i have to make is the above. but if I'm making a wave, i thought i had to have accelerating charges in which case why would the above be true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
iScience said:
could someone explain to me why the the time derivative of current density J would be zero?

more specifically..

$$\mu_0\frac{∂\vec{J}}{∂t}=0$$


trying to derive maxwell's wave equation for E-field and i guess one of the assumptions i have to make is the above. but if I'm making a wave, i thought i had to have accelerating charges in which case why would the above be true?

The Maxwell equation you are referring to is ∇ x H = j + ∂D/∂t

where

H = B0
j = current density vector
D0E.

Fact: e-m waves are created by virtue of the ∂D/∂t term, not the j term.

BTW I am not aware that ∂j/∂t has to be zero.
 
yea that's the equation I'm referring to (the corrected ampere's law).I agree that a constant J would not produce a wave, however ∂J/∂t should. and here's where i get ∂J/∂t:if we set this equation equal to faraday's law in differential form:

$$\frac{∂}{∂t}(\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B})= \frac{∂}{∂t}(\mu_0(\vec{J}+\epsilon_0\frac{∂\vec{E}}{∂t}))$$

$$\nabla \times \frac{∂\vec{B}}{∂t}=-\vec{\nabla} \times (\vec{\nabla} \times E)$$$$\frac{∂}{∂t}(\mu_0(\vec{J}+\epsilon_0\frac{∂\vec{E}}{∂t}))=-\vec{\nabla} \times (\vec{\nabla} \times E)$$

this is the place I'm referring to. why does the [itex]\mu_0 \frac{∂\vec{J}}{∂t}[/itex] term disappear?
 
[tex]\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}= \mu_0\left(\vec{J}+\epsilon_0\frac{∂\vec{E}}{∂t}\right)[/tex]

and

[tex]\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}= -\frac{∂\vec{B}}{∂t}[/tex]

Take the curl of the second one,

[tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}= -\frac{∂}{∂t}\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{B}[/tex]

and substitute the first one
--->

[tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}= -\frac{∂}{∂t}\mu_0\left(\vec{J}+\epsilon_0\frac{∂\vec{E}}{∂t}\right)[/tex]

ehild
 
exactly what i did..

still don't see how that term disappears
 
What do you mean that J disappears? It is still there.

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K