-1
$\begingroup$

If a uniform magnetic field ${\bf{B}}=B_{z}{\bf{\hat{z}}}$ exists in a hollow cylinder (with the top and bottom open) with a radius $R$ and axis pointing in the $z$-direction, then the vector potential

$${\bf{A}}=\frac{BR^{2}}{2r}{\bf{\hat{\phi}}}?$$

using Stokes's theorem.


How can you prove this?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

You are given a uniform magnetic field $\vec{B}=B_z\hat{z}$

We have the relation connecting the magnetic field vector $\vec{B}$ and the vector potential $\vec{A}$

$$\vec{B}=\nabla\times\vec{A}\tag 1$$

Now, according to Stoke's theorem, we have

$$\int_S\left(\nabla\times\vec{A}\right)\cdot d\vec{S}=\oint_C\vec{A}\cdot d\vec{r}\tag 2$$

The theorem can be stated as follows: The surface integral of the curl of a vector field is equal to the line integral of the vector field around the boundary of the surface. So, in the above equation, the surface integral is across the surface $S$ bounded by a boundary curve $C$, along which the line integral is taken.

Now, from $(1)$, we can write $(2)$ as

$$\oint_C\vec{A}\cdot d\vec{r}=\int_S\vec{B}\cdot d\vec{S}\tag 3$$

Since the magnetic field is uniform and points in a direction along the axis of the cylinder, the magnetic vector potential lies along the radial direction, which is clear from equation $(1)$. At the end, the magnetic field points in the same direction as the cross sectional area of the hollow cylinder. Hence the dot product simplifies as

$$\oint_C\vec{A}\cdot d\vec{r}=B_z\int_S d{S}\tag 4$$

If we choose our origin on an axis of symmetry, so that we can take $A$ as circumferential ($\hat{\phi}$ component only) and a function only of $r$, then

$$\oint_C\vec{A}\cdot d\vec{r}=A_{\phi}\left(2\pi r\right)\tag 5$$

That's all. Now, check $(4)$ and $(5)$; and using appropriate substitutions, you can reach your final answer.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ But if the surface is given by the cross-sectional area of the cylinder, then shouldn't the line integral be over the shell of the cylinder and therefore get a factor $2\pi R$ instead of $2\pi r$? $\endgroup$ Nov 6 '16 at 2:26
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. However, the potential is a function of $r$, the distance from the axis. Hence no need to apply the limits. $\endgroup$
    – UKH
    Nov 6 '16 at 2:28
0
$\begingroup$

Take the curl of ${\bf A}$. If the answer is ${\bf B}$, then you have a valid vector potential. Note, however, that the vector potential is not unique; two different expressions for ${\bf A}$ may have the same curl, and so they correspond to the same magnetic field.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ But in cylindrical coordinates, $\nabla = (\partial_{\rho},\frac{1}{\rho}\partial_{\phi},\partial_{z})$ and ${\bf{A}}=(0,\frac{BR^{2}}{2r},0)$ so that ${\bf{B}}=\nabla\times {\bf{A}}=(0,-\frac{BR^{2}}{2r^{2}},0)$. Where am I getting it wrong? $\endgroup$ Nov 6 '16 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ If you are directly substituting in $\nabla\times\vec{A}=\vec{B}$, then why Stoke's theorem? $\endgroup$
    – UKH
    Nov 6 '16 at 1:53
  • $\begingroup$ I know. Can you give me the detailed steps so I can see where I am getting things wrong? $\endgroup$ Nov 6 '16 at 1:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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