Why Does the Negative Sign Appear in the Vector Potential Equation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the appearance of the negative sign in the vector potential equation, exploring the mathematical derivation and implications of the vector potential in the context of electromagnetic theory. Participants are examining the relationships between gradients and integrals involving vector fields, specifically in relation to the vector potential and current density.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the origin of the negative sign in the vector potential equation, questioning the transition between different variables and the implications of the gradient operation.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical identity involving the gradient of the distance between two points, suggesting that the negative sign can be explained through this relationship.
  • A further participant raises a question about the validity of taking the gradient out of the integral, indicating uncertainty about the mathematical manipulation involved.
  • Another participant introduces a vector identity that relates to the discussion, prompting further exploration of how the components fit into the identity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the mathematical steps and the interpretation of the negative sign in the equation. The discussion remains unresolved with ongoing questions and clarifications being sought.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the gradient operations and the conditions under which certain mathematical identities apply. The discussion reflects a need for clarity on the manipulation of vector fields and integrals in this context.

deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
TL;DR
.
We have motivated the derivation of the vector potential in the following way:
1706619806217.png

However, I cannot understand where the ##-## sign in the second equality came from. I thought that it was because the gradient was with respect to the ##y##-variable, and then using the product rule one could explain the transition to the last expression, but in that case ##\nabla_{\vec y}\times\vec j(\vec y)## would have to be zero, which I am not really sure is necessarily true; and in that case I would again not understand how a ##\nabla_{\vec y}## would become a ##\nabla_{\vec x}##, since at ##\nabla\times \vec A(\vec x)## I assume ##\nabla## must be acting on the ##\vec x##
That's why I don't see how the left and right hand sides of the third, fourth, and possibly the fifts ##=## signs are equal to each other, can someone please help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You know that
##\nabla_x \dfrac{1}{|x-y|}=-\dfrac{x-y}{|x-y|^3}=-\nabla_y \dfrac{1}{|x-y|}##
It follows that
##\dfrac{x-y}{|x-y|^3}=+\nabla_y \dfrac{1}{|x-y|}=-\nabla_x \dfrac{1}{|x-y|}.##

So the second equality is $$=-\frac{1}{c}\int \int \int j(y)\times\nabla_x \dfrac{1}{|x-y|}d^3y$$Does this help?
 
but in that case how do we take ##\nabla_{\vec x}## out of the integral? It wasn't cross multiplied with ##\frac 1 {|\vec x-\vec y|}##, but now it is?
 
The vector identity says
##\vec{\nabla}\times(\psi~\vec A)= \psi \vec{\nabla}\times\vec A+\vec{\nabla}\psi\times \vec A. ##
Here you identify
##\vec{\nabla}\rightarrow \vec{\nabla}_x##
##\psi \rightarrow \dfrac{1}{|x-y|}##
##\vec A \rightarrow \vec j (y)##

What do you get when you put these in the identity?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
785
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K