1
$\begingroup$

I am looking at an example problem from Greiner's Classical Electrodynamics (chapter 21 , page 441) about the Hertzian Dipole where the radiation will require a cross product ($\vec{d} \times \hat{n}$, where) calculation as is shown below:

enter image description here

So, if this cross product was done in Cartesian coordinates, then we would need the component information of the $\hat{n}$ vector, $(n_x, n_y, n_z)$. Now, both vectors in the cross product, $\vec{d}$ and $\hat{n}$, are on equal footing and we would need to replace each cartesian unit vector with its corresponding linear combination of spherical unit vectors.

My questions:

  1. Why does the text solution only give the $\hat{n}$ vector only a component for $\hat{r}$ and nothing in $\hat{\theta}$ and $\hat{\phi}$?Is it because it assumes those coordinates are zero and automatically aligns the spherical coordinate unit vectors around the $\hat{n}$ vector so that $\theta=\phi=0$?

  2. If I were to do the reverse and define the $\vec{d}$ vector as a vector with only a $\vec{r}$ component and the $\vec{n}$ vector having all three components $(\hat{r}, \hat{\theta}, \hat{\phi})$, would this allowing me to calculate the $\vec{H}$ vector for any orientation of $\hat{n}$?

I really need some elucidation on this to fully understand whats going on! Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Jeez, who read the proof for that book? The equations for $\hat e_x$ and $\hat e_y$ are wrong, and equation $(21.33)$ has the wrong sign. The formula only needs $\hat e_r$ because that is the location of the field point. $\endgroup$ – user5713492 Jul 17 '18 at 1:59
  • $\begingroup$ @user5713492 Really? Because (plaza.obu.edu/corneliusk/mp/suv.pdf) concurs. $\endgroup$ – Donkey Kong Jul 17 '18 at 4:13
  • $\begingroup$ A first note : usually we define the azimuthal angle $\:\phi\:$ with respect to the $\:x-$axis. But Greiner defines the azimuthal angle $\:\phi\:$ with respect to the $\:y-$axis as shown in the Figure 21.9. In the link you gave we have the former definition instead of the latter (Greiner's). That's the reason to disagree with @user5713492 about signs. $\endgroup$ – Frobenius Jul 17 '18 at 5:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Frobenius No, careful analysis shows that Greiner's Figure $21.9$ is in error. I'll have to write out an answer to change his diapers. $\endgroup$ – user5713492 Jul 17 '18 at 7:43
  • $\begingroup$ @user5713492 : Ok. I post my note after a first glance. Please make your careful analysis to correct the error and help the OP to realize what is going wrong with Greiner's. Oh, now I saw your answer. $\endgroup$ – Frobenius Jul 17 '18 at 8:33
1
$\begingroup$

First off, Greiner's Figure $21.9$ is simply wrong. It implies that $$\vec r=\langle-r\sin\theta\sin\phi,r\sin\theta\cos\phi,r\cos\theta\rangle$$ So $$\begin{align}d\vec r&=\langle-\sin\theta\sin\phi,\sin\theta\cos\phi,\cos\theta\rangle dr\\ &\quad+r\langle-\cos\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta\cos\phi,-\sin\theta\rangle d\theta\\ &\quad+r\sin\theta\langle-\cos\phi,-\sin\phi,0\rangle d\phi\end{align}$$ From which we may read off $$\begin{align}\hat e_r&=\langle-\sin\theta\sin\phi,\sin\theta\cos\phi,\cos\theta\rangle\\ \hat e_{\theta}&=\langle-\cos\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta\cos\phi,-\sin\theta\rangle\\ \hat e_{\phi}&=\langle-\cos\phi,-\sin\phi,0\rangle\end{align}$$ And then solve to obtain $$\begin{align}\hat e_x&=-\sin\theta\sin\phi\hat e_r-\cos\theta\sin\phi\hat e_{\theta}-\cos\phi\hat e_{\phi}\\ \hat e_y&=\sin\theta\cos\phi\hat e_r+\cos\theta\cos\phi\hat e_{\theta}-\sin\phi\hat e_{\phi}\\ \hat e_z&=\cos\theta\hat e_r-\sin\theta\hat e_{\theta}\end{align}$$ And that's miles away from what Greiner has. The figure Greiner is actually working from is as you say http://plaza.obu.edu/corneliusk/mp/suv.pdf . From there $$\vec r=\langle r\sin\theta\cos\phi,r\sin\theta\sin\phi,r\cos\theta\rangle$$ And now we get $$\begin{align}d\vec r&=\langle\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta\rangle dr\\ &\quad+r\langle\cos\theta\cos\phi,\cos\theta\sin\phi,-\sin\theta\rangle d\theta\\ &\quad+r\sin\theta\langle-\sin\phi,\cos\phi,0\rangle d\phi\end{align}$$ And then $$\begin{align}\hat e_r&=\langle\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta\rangle\\ \hat e_{\theta}&=\langle\cos\theta\cos\phi,\cos\theta\sin\phi,-\sin\theta\rangle\\ \hat e_{\phi}&=\langle-\sin\phi,\cos\phi,0\rangle\end{align}$$ And solve to get $$\begin{align}\hat e_x&=\sin\theta\cos\phi\hat e_r+\cos\theta\cos\phi\hat e_{\theta}-\sin\phi\hat e_{\phi}\\ \hat e_y&=\sin\theta\sin\phi\hat e_r+\cos\theta\sin\phi\hat e_{\theta}+\cos\phi\hat e_{\phi}\\ \hat e_z&=\cos\theta\hat e_r-\sin\theta\hat e_{\theta}\end{align}$$ You see the difference now, right? Greiner has the trig functions of the wrong argument multiplying $\hat e_{\phi}$, while the *.pdf you linked to has the right stuff. Also we can work out that $$\begin{align}\hat e_r\times\hat e_r&=\vec0\\ \hat e_{\theta}\times\hat e_r&=-\hat e_{\phi}\\ \hat e_{\phi}\times\hat e_r&=\hat e_{\theta}\end{align}$$ And this would lead us to conclude that the overall sign of $\vec H$ in Equation $21.33$ is inconsistent with the previous equation. I think that may be due to forgetting a convention that the charge of the electron is $-e$ earlier on, but then copying the formula into the final result. A very sloppy derivation.

Again, $\vec r=r\hat e_r$ is the vector from the source point to the field point so $\hat e_r$ is the one we need. Where would $\hat e_{\theta}$ or $\hat e_{\phi}$ come in?

$\endgroup$

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.