Taking the curl of the electric field must be possible, because Faraday's law involves it: $$\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = - \partial \mathbf{B} / \partial t$$ But I've just looked on Wikipedia, where it says

The curl of the gradient of any twice-differentiable scalar field $\phi$ is always the zero vector: $$\nabla \times (\nabla \phi)=\mathbf{0}$$

Seeing as $\mathbf{E} = - \nabla V$, where $V$ is the electric potential, this would suggest $\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = \mathbf{0}$.

What presumably monumentally obvious thing am I missing?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As time derivative in the Faraday's law indicates the field there is not static, it does not therefore have to be conservative, i.e. a gradient of a scalar field. $\endgroup$ – Conifold Apr 19 '16 at 19:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is a FAQ. Not all electrostatic formulas hold in electromagnetism. Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/100028/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Apr 19 '16 at 20:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're missing the fact that electric field cannot always be expressed as the gradient of a scalar function! $\endgroup$ – DanielSank Apr 19 '16 at 22:24

The fact is that, in the general case $$ \vec{E} = -\vec{\nabla}V - \frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}; $$ (signs depend on conventions used) where $\vec{A}$ is called vector potential. You can consult for example Wikipedia.

Let us consider homogeneous Maxwell equations:

$$ \begin{cases} \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{B} = 0,\\ \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} + \frac{\partial\vec{B}}{\partial t} = 0; \end{cases} $$

It is well-known that every divergenceless filed can be written a curl of another vector field (in a simply connected domain) just as we know that a curless field can be written as a gradient of a scalar function (always in a simply connected domain). Thus from the first equation,

$$ \vec{B} = \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}, $$

and substituting this in the second equation,

$$ \vec\nabla\times\left(\vec{E} + \frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}\right)=0, $$

since one can exchange the curl with the derivative w.r.t. time, and so one can set:

$$ \vec{E} + \frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t} = -\vec\nabla V, $$

from which

$$ \vec{E} = -\vec{\nabla}V - \frac{\partial\vec{A}}{\partial t}. $$

Note that if your magnetic field is time-independent, you recover the well-know formula

$$ \vec{E} = -\vec\nabla V. $$

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just a slight correction: there's a minus sign missing in the last expression $\endgroup$ – binaryfunt Apr 19 '16 at 20:37

When there is a time-varying magnetic field, the electric field is non-conservative and therefore cannot be written in the form $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla V$.


For dynamic electric and magnetic fields, there is a piece of the electric field that depends on the vector potential: $$ \vec{E} = - \vec{\nabla} V - \frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}, \qquad \vec{B} = \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}. $$ Taking the curl of the first equation yields Faraday's Law (with the $V$-dependent term dropping out as you note); taking the divergence of the second one yields the "no monopole" law $\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B} = 0$.


protected by Qmechanic Apr 19 '16 at 20:02

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.