Constants in scalar and vector potentials

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the interpretation of constants a and γ in the scalar potential Φ and vector potential A. The constant a represents amplitude, while γ serves as the attenuation or damping factor over time, indicating that the amplitude decreases significantly by t = 5/γ. Both constants are deemed measurable, particularly through the scalar potential, and can be inferred from measurements of electric and magnetic fields. Additionally, the discussion notes that gauge conditions, such as Coulomb and Lorentz gauges, are necessary for measuring both potentials. Overall, a and γ have physical significance rather than being arbitrary values.
struggling_student
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
We have a scalar potential $$\Phi(\vec{r})=\frac{q}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \left( \frac{1}{r} - \frac{a^2\gamma e^{-\gamma t}\cos\theta}{r^3}\right)$$

and a vector potential $$\vec{A}(\vec{r})=\frac{a^2qe^{-\gamma t}}{4\pi\epsilon_0r^4}\left(3\cos\theta\hat{r} + \sin\theta\hat{\theta} \right) .$$

how do I interpret the constants ##a## and ##\gamma##. Do they have any physical meaning or are they arbitrary, unmeasurable values?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Focusing first on the formula for vector potential, we can say that ##a## is part of the amplitude while ##\gamma## is the attenuation factor (or the damping factor) with respect to time. In time ##t=\frac{5}{\gamma}## the amplitude loses 99.32% of its initial value at time t=0.

Similar things can be said for the ##\frac{1}{r^3}## term of the scalar potential.

As to if they are measurable things, yes they are. At least from what I know is that usually we can measure the scalar potential (not sure about the vector potential) and from that we can infer the values of a ang gamma.

P.S We can measure both scalar and vector potential but we have to use additional conditions (known as gauge conditions, e.g. Coulomb gauge, Lorentz gauge. In any case what we actually can measure is electric and magnetic field , ##\vec{E},\vec{B}##.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top