How can one argue by symmetry that the vector potential $A$ such that $$B = \nabla \times A$$ is along the $z$ axis assuming the wire is also along the $z$ axis and is carrying current in the $+z$ direction?

I know that $B=\frac{\mu_0I}{2\pi r}\hat{e_r}$ and I also know the expression for the curl in cylindrical coordinates, which I eventually want to use to calculate $A$ but I first want to understand why is $A$ along the $z$ axis and in particular why is $A$ oriented along the direction of current?

  • $\begingroup$ B is not in the r-direction. It is in the $\phi$ direction. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Apr 10 '18 at 22:47

The answer is you can't and the A-field is not necessarily directed only along the z-axis. $\vec{A}$ is not uniquely defined. You can add the gradient of any scalar field to it and arrive at the same B-field.

What you can do with symmetry is argue that $\vec{A}$ cannot vary with $z$ (for an infinitely long wire) and cannot vary with $\phi$. So only derivatives with respect to $r$ can be non-zero. However, this still does not uniquely define the A-field.

Taking a curl in cylindrical coordinates, the only possible non-zero terms are $$\nabla \times \vec{A} = -\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial R} \hat{\phi} + \frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial (R\ A_{\phi})}{\partial R} \hat{z}$$

The B-field is $$ \vec{B} = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2\pi R} \ \hat{\phi}$$ so this immediately tells you that there must be an $A_z$ (and gives you a possible functional form for it).

However, the second term in the curl above is zero, suggesting you could also add a cylindrically symmetric $A_{\phi}$ term of the form $$ A_{\phi} = \frac{k}{R}$$ This has a curl of zero (is irrotational) and so does not change the curl of the A-field.


Up the gauge freedom described by Rob Jeffries's answer, and focusing on "why is $A$ along the $z$":

At any point $\vec{r}$, there are 2 vectors given by the problem:

$$ \vec j, \ \ \vec r . $$

(Where $\vec r$ is in spherical coordinates). From that, all the vector you can create are:

$$ \vec I , \ \ \vec r,\ \ \vec I \times\vec r .$$

The cross product can be ruled out very generally by parity symmetry (it's a pseudo vector), while $\vec r$ breaks the translation symmetry along the $z$-axis.

That leaves you with:

$$ \vec A \propto \vec I$$

(at fix $||r||$).

The remaining vectors can be scaled by the scalars in the problem (or functions of them):

$$1,\ \ ||I||^2,\ \ ||r||^2,\ \ \vec I\cdot\vec r, \ \ ||\vec I \times \vec r|| $$

The constant term gives a field with infinite energy, so throw that out. $||r||^2$ and $\vec I \cdot \vec r$ break the ($z$) translation symmetry, so we're stuck with

$$ ||I||^2, \ \ ||\vec I \times \vec r||.$$

The result is that the constant of proportionailty is:

$$ -\frac{\mu_0}{2\pi} \ln{\big(\frac{||\vec I\times\vec r||}{||I||}\big)}$$

Of course, $\vec A$ is not physical, and the gradient of a scalar field lacking any symmetry can be added. $\vec B$ is physical, and its a axial vector; hence the cross product term.

The sign is a result the order of the cross products. Looking just at the direction, the Biot-Savart law says (emphasis: loosely, we're just looking at the direction):

$$ d\vec B \propto \vec I \times \hat r $$

Working on the x-axis:

$$ dB_y \propto I_zx-I_zx = I_zx $$

So that's a positive $B_y$ for positive $I_z$ and $x$.

Meanwhile the curl of $A$ goes like:

$$ B_y \propto \frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}$$

But $A_z$ is decreasing (in magnitude) with increasing $x$ (it's further from the wire), so to get a positive result, $A_z$ must be negative, or opposite the positive current $I_z$.


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.