Why Does Equation (7) in Magnetic Vector Potential Have a Negative Sign?

fricke
Messages
38
Reaction score
3
Not a homework question! I am doing exercises for upcoming final exam.

So, I get stuck at question 5.27 (Griffith 4th edition textbook).

Question:
Find the vector potential above and below an infinite uniform surface current with constant current sheet, K flowing at positive x direction.

I get really stuck so I googled the answer and it shows like this:
http://www.physicspages.com/2013/03/11/magnetic-vector-potential-of-an-infinite-wire/

What I don't understand is, from the link there, why does equation (7) need negative sign? I mean, we already obtain a nice solution in equation (5).

Help me please, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fricke said:
Not a homework question! I am doing exercises for upcoming final exam.

That counts as homework as far as Physics Forums is concerned. This thread has been moved accordingly.

fricke said:
why does equation (7) need negative sign? I mean, we already obtain a nice solution in equation (5).

Equation (5) is not a solution for the vector potential, which is what you are supposed to find. It's a solution for the integral of the magnetic field over a given area, which is equal to the line integral of the vector potential around its boundary. Try comparing equation (5) with equation (6).
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top