0
$\begingroup$

I was beginning to learn about the vector and scalar potential formulations of classical E & M where you choose a $\phi$ and an $\vec{A}$ such that: \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &\vec{B} \equiv \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A} \\ &\vec{E} \equiv-\nabla \phi-\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} I was curious what would happen if $\phi$ was such that it was simply equal to the emf from Faraday's law, \begin{equation} \phi=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \oint \vec{B} \cdot d \vec{A}, \end{equation} So then, \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} &=-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}} \oint \vec{B} \cdot d \vec{S} \\ &=-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}} \oint \left(\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}\right) \cdot d \vec{S}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} Then Stoke's theorem says \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} & \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}} \int \vec{A} \cdot d \vec{r} \\ \Rightarrow & \vec{\nabla} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=-\vec{\nabla}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}} \int\vec{A} \cdot d \vec{r}\right) \\ \Rightarrow &-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\nabla \phi)=\frac{\partial^{2} \vec{A}}{\partial t^{2}} \\ \Rightarrow &-\nabla \phi=\frac{\partial A}{\partial t} \end{aligned} \end{equation} Which means: \begin{equation} \vec{E}=-\nabla \phi-\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}=0 \end{equation} So in the special case where the scalar potential is equal to the emf, the electric field vanishes.

Is this derivation correct? And if so, what are the implications of this result? I feel that there is some significance here but I'm not sure what it is.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

You equation $$ \phi=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\oint {\bf B}\cdot d{\bf S} $$ makes no sense. The potential $\phi({\bf r},t)$ is a function of position ${\bf r}$ while the RHS is not a function of position. It depends only the curve bounding the surface of integration.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ B is a function of r and t. $\endgroup$
    – Cody Payne
    Commented Feb 24, 2022 at 21:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, but after integration over ${\bf r}$ the RHS is no longer a function of ${\bf r}$. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Commented Feb 24, 2022 at 21:59
2
$\begingroup$

To be honest, this doesn't make a lot of sense. The electric potential $\phi(\vec{r},t)$ is a scalar field, meaning it has a real value associated with every point in space and every moment in time. The value of the surface integral $\oint \vec{B} \cdot d \vec{A}$, meanwhile, depends on the values of $\vec{B}$ over an entire surface—in other words, at an infinite number of points.

Also, you appear to be stating that $$ \vec{\nabla} \left( \int \vec{A} \cdot d\vec{l} \right) = \vec{A} $$ which is only true in limited circumstances. Specifically, if $\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A} = 0$, then we can define a function $U(\vec{r}) = \int^\vec{r}_{\vec{r}_0} \vec{A} \cdot d\vec{l}$, where $\vec{r}$ appears as the endpoint of the path integral. We will then have $\vec{\nabla} U = \vec{A}$ from the fundamental theorem of calculus.

But the vector potential in general does not have $\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A} = \vec{B} = 0$. What's more, the loop you are integrating over is a closed loop (it's the boundary of a surface, remember), so you can't differentiate it with respect to its "endpoint" because it doesn't have any endpoints.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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