0
$\begingroup$

Why does the induction equation of the magnetohydrodynamics assume the electric field $E$ is time $t$ independent or $\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}=0$?

Note: I am querying about the general case described in the Section Mathematical statement of the Wikipedia page linked to earlier, not the special case of infinite conductivity describe in the subsequent section Perfectly-conducting limit.

Specifically, Maxwell's equation stipulates $$\nabla \times \vec B = \mu_0\Big(\vec J + \varepsilon_0 \frac{\partial \vec E} {\partial t} \Big).$$ The $\frac{\partial \vec E} {\partial t}$ term would produce a $\frac{\partial^2 \vec B} {\partial t^2}$ term giving a wave component which is currently missing in the final PDE for $\vec B$.

The derivation in the first paragraph has $$\nabla \times \vec B = \mu_0 \vec J.$$ Where did the $\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}$ term go?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you clarify where you find that $E$ is not a function of time or that it has a zero-derivative? The argument I've always seen is that with MHD fluids, we write everything in terms of the magnetic field instead of the electric field, but that doesn't require the electric field to be static. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ Also related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/123643/25301 $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos: I just edited the question to point the specific point where the issue arises. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 17:11

3 Answers 3

0
$\begingroup$

The Wikipedia article you link makes it explicit that the time-varying electric field is small compared to the current density $\mathbf{J}$,

The displacement current can be neglected in a plasma as it is negligible compared to the current carried by the free charges

So if your question is as simple as that, then the answer is found in the very article you linked, just under the equations you've referenced.


That said, the derivation of the induction equation should be starting with Faraday's law, $$\nabla\times\mathbf{E}=-\frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}\tag{1}$$ combined with the Lorentz force, $$\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}+q\boldsymbol{\beta}\times\mathbf{B}\tag{2}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\beta}=\mathbf{v}/c$. Then, under the assumption of infinite conductivity, results in $$\mathbf{E}=-\boldsymbol{\beta}\times\mathbf{B}\tag{3}$$ It is by using Equation (3) and placing it into Equation (1) that we obtain the MHD induction equation, $$\frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}+\nabla\times\left(\boldsymbol{\beta}\times\mathbf{B}\right)=0$$

Extensions to non-ideal scenarios can be obtained through various modifications to the Lorentz force law or through various electric field equations (e.g., Ohm's law in which $\mathbf{J}\sim\mathbf{E}+\boldsymbol{\beta}\times\mathbf{B}$ from which you obtain the diffusive MHD model with a term like $\nabla^2\mathbf{B}$)

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ As you say, this only applies to the special case of $F=0$, and not the general case. It does not matter where we start. Faraday's law is only part of the derivation. The question remains. By the way, you missed the negative sign and $c$ in Equation $(1)$. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure that I agree that $\mathbf{F}=0$ is a "special case" as, to my knowledge, it's valid in all plasmas for which you'd want to use MHD to study it. Modifications of Eq (3) to add in the current density are trivial and extend Ideal MHD to non-ideal scenarios (e.g., magnetic diffusion to give you reconnection). $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ The point still remains: if you start on the wrong path (as Wikipedia does), you have to make handy-waving arguments to make it right. If you start on the right path (as above), you can appeal to physical arguments. I'd be more willing to engage the derivation if you found a reputable textbook arguing the way Wikipedia does, but you almost surely cannot. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 21:31
  • $\begingroup$ It is not the wrong path, the Wikipedia page uses Faraday's law as well. Setting that aside, would you please derive the general case when conductivity is not infinity or that $J\ne 0$, which gives the equation in the section Mathematical statement of the Wikipedia page linked to, involving the diffusion term $\nabla^2 B$ ? The general case is my question is aiming at. Otherwise my question is moot. The special case of infinite conductivity is already covered in the section titled Perfectly-conducting limit which I agree with and is not my interest. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 22:13
  • $\begingroup$ Wikipedia is starting with Ampere's law, which is not what one should do, as you have to make the haphazard assumption that $\partial_t\mathbf{E}\simeq0$ (or $\mathbf{J}\gg\partial_t\mathbf{E}$), which is exactly what is stated in the Wikipedia article you link, "The displacement current can be neglected in a plasma as it is negligible compared to the current carried by the free charges". What you're aiming for isn't "general" either, so I'm not sure why you're so focused on Wikipedia instead of how an actual textbook would derive the induction equation. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 22:26
0
$\begingroup$

MHD theory does not assume $\partial_\mathrm{t}\mathbf{E}=0$! It assumes $v/c\ll1$.

Let me first write down the Maxwell-Faraday equation in SI and CGS systems respectively $$\nabla\times\mathbf{E}=-\partial_\mathrm{t}\mathbf{B}\quad(\mathrm{SI}),\quad \nabla\times\mathbf{E}=\partial_\mathrm{t}\mathbf{B}/c\quad (\mathrm{CGS}).$$ Denoting by $L$ the spatial size of the plasma system and by $T$ the temporal scale of the process, we have \begin{align}E/L\sim B/T\quad(\mathrm{SI}),\quad E/L\sim B/cT\quad (\mathrm{CGS})\end{align} or \begin{align}E\sim vB\quad(\mathrm{SI}),\quad E\sim (v/c)B\quad (\mathrm{CGS})\tag{1}\label{eq1}\end{align} where $E,v,B$ are the magnitudes of the characteristic electric field, velocity, and magnetic field of the phenomenon that concerns us. In case of relativistic phenomenon, such as electromagnetic waves, whose characteristic velocity is close to the speed of light in vacuum ($v\sim c$), the relation becomes $$E\sim cB\quad(\mathrm{SI}),\quad E\sim B\quad (\mathrm{CGS}).$$ Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD, not relativistic magnetohydrodynamics), concerns the plasma phenomena in which velocity is much less than the speed of light in vacuum $v/c\ll1$. This statement leads to an immediate consequence, that electromangetic waves in plasmas are not the part MHD theory shall consider, since their velocities are close to the speed of light in vacuum. For the Maxwell-Ampere equation $$\nabla\times\mathbf{B}=\mu_0\mathbf{j}+\partial_\mathrm{t}\mathbf{E}/c^2\quad(\mathrm{SI}),\quad \nabla\times\mathbf{B}=4\pi\mathbf{j}/c+\partial_\mathrm{t}\mathbf{E}/c\quad (\mathrm{CGS}).\tag{2}\label{eqjflw}$$ we can write the following relations for the three terms $$\frac{B}{L}\sim \mu_0 j +\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{E}{T} \quad(\mathrm{SI}),\quad\frac{B}{L}\sim \frac{j}{c} +\frac{1}{c}\frac{E}{T} \quad(\mathrm{CGS})$$ Using the relations \eqref{eq1} we arrive at $$B\sim \mu_0 jL +\frac{v^2}{c^2}B \quad(\mathrm{SI}),\quad B\sim jL/c +\frac{v^2}{c^2}B \quad(\mathrm{CGS})$$ It is now obvious that, for phonomena of $v/c\ll1$, the term of electric displacement in \eqref{eqjflw} must be much less than the curl of magnetic induction. To maintain the equality in \eqref{eqjflw}, the electric current, whose determination depends not only on the Maxwell equations but also on the plasma model, should be close to the curl of magnetic induction. Thus the term of temporal derivative of electric field can be omitted.

In fact, we can put it inversely. It is the omitting of this term, among other manipulations (approximations), that makes MHD theory, which is designed for non-relativitic phenomena in plasmas.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ You are using SI unit. In the Gaussian CGS unit, $E$ and $B$ fields have the same unit. In the CGS unit, your first relation would be $E~ v/c B$. Putting that aside, why should that be the case? As a counter, why should it not be e.g. that $B~ v/c E$? Where does the second approximation relation come from? Also, the relevant comparison should be between $J$ and the displacement current rather than between the displacement current and $\nabla\times B$. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 6:04
  • $\begingroup$ I have reedited the anwser. Which approximation did you refer to by "the second approximation relation"? $\endgroup$
    – Yufei
    Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ In my previous comment, I asked why $E\sim v/c B$ and not any other relation e.g. $B\sim v/c E$ from Maxwell's equations. $E$ and $B$ are almost symmetric in the equations. You have not answered that question. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ As explained in the new anwser, this in fact results from the Faraday's law. E and B are not symmetric. Please check the first sentence of my anwser. $\endgroup$
    – Yufei
    Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ I read your first sentence. I am asking you to show its derivation from Maxwell's equation. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 9:57
-2
$\begingroup$

You are not assuming that the electric field is stationary. Indeed, from Maxwell-Faraday’s law, you recover a time dependence. You are just neglecting the displacement current (as indicated by the wikipedia article). Physically, you are cutting part of the feedback loop between the EM fields, so you are neglecting radiation.

Pedestrianly, this amounts to setting the speed of light to infinity. More realistically, it’s rather about saying that the typical velocity of your fluid is small compared to the speed of light. Note that this is not about the actual velocity field of the fluid. Any combination of the parameters which gives a velocity works just as well. For example at large distance with fixed frequency this approximation would necessarily break down.

Hope this helps.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I disagree with this rationale. The formulation in CGS unit involving the speed of light c has $J$ and $\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}$ on the same footing. I do not see how $c\to\infty$ would produce the result you claim. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ "velocity of your fluid is small compared to the speed of light" huh? MHD is used in (numerically) studying supernova remnants, which are moving at about 10% the speed of light. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Hans, even in CGS, there is still the factor $\frac{1}{c}$ in front of the displacement current. Even when you use natural units where $c=1$, it just means that the now dimensionless characteristic velocity is small compared to $1$. This is also known as the quasistatic limit. $\endgroup$
    – LPZ
    Commented Oct 3, 2023 at 6:22
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos, when I say characteristic velocity, I’m not necessarily talking about the the actual velocity field of the fluid. As in classical electromagnetism, it can arise from combining the characteristic size of the domain and its frequency (like for an antenna). Even if the fluid is moving fast, it is not quite relevant due to relativity. The more interesting quantity is its acceleration for estimating radiation, which can be transformed into a velocity by adding a characteristic length. $\endgroup$
    – LPZ
    Commented Oct 3, 2023 at 6:34
  • $\begingroup$ You are right that I overlooked the assumption of the displacement current being negligible. With this assumption, the case is closed. Now are you trying to, rather than take that assumption as given, but take a step further and deduce it from some more primitive premise? If the answer is affirmative, could you please write out the complete deductive rationale? I do not understand your argument in the current form. $\endgroup$
    – Hans
    Commented Oct 3, 2023 at 6:53

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.