Don't understand something in proof

  • Thread starter WiFO215
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, Alfven's theorem states that the change of flux through any closed loop moving through a magnetic field of conducting material is zero. This is shown through a non-rigorous proof where dt is ignored in comparison to t. The magnetic field is assumed to be continuous and slowly varying in time, making it possible to approximate B at time t and t+dt as the same (first order approximation). This approximation is used to show that the change in flux (d\phi) over time (dt) is equal to zero. The concept of first order approximation is explained as ignoring terms involving small numbers (dt) and how it can be used to approximate solutions to problems.
  • #1
WiFO215
420
1
Alfven's theorem:

The change of flux through any closed loop moving through a magnetic field of conducting material is zero.

Imagine a loop S moving with speed v and a time later it is a little ahead. It is now loop S', it's dimensions have somehow changed. The "band" which connects S to S' is R. All this happens in a time dt. Initially, the field was B(t). After some time, it is B(t+dt).

(a) J = [tex]\sigma[/tex](E + v X B); J finite, [tex]\sigma[/tex] --> [tex]\infty[/tex], E + (v XB) = O.Take the curl: [tex]\nabla[/tex]xE + [tex]\nabla[/tex]x(v XB) = O. But
8B 8B
Faraday's law says [tex]\nabla[/tex]xE = -dB/dt. So dB/dt = [tex]\nabla[/tex]x(v XB). qed
(b) [tex]\nabla[/tex].B = 0 --> [tex]\oint[/tex] B. da = a for any closed surface. Apply this at time (t + dt) to the surface consisting of
S, S', and R:

[tex]\int[/tex]S' B(t + dt) .da + [tex]\int[/tex]R B(t + dt) .da - [tex]\int[/tex]S B(t + dt) .da =a

(the sign change in the third term comes from switching outward da to inward da).

d[tex]\phi[/tex]=[tex]\int[/tex]S' B(t + dt) .da - [tex]\int[/tex]S B(t) .da = [tex]\int[/tex] [B(t + dt) - B(t)] .da - [tex]\int[/tex]R B(t + at) .da ~

d[tex]\phi[/tex]= [tex]\int[/tex]dB/dt . da} dt -[tex]\int[/tex] B(t + dt) . [(dl X v)

Since the second term is already first order in dt, we can replace B(t + dt) by B(t) (the distinction would be
second order)
:
d[tex]\phi[/tex]=dt [tex]\int[/tex] (dB/dt.da) - [tex]\int[/tex]B.(dlxv) [this term is the same as (vxB).dl] =dt{[tex]\int[/tex]dB/dt .da - [tex]\nabla[/tex]x(vXB).da}.

So,
d[tex]\phi[/tex]/dt = 0

Now, I don't understand the part in bold. What does first order and second order refer to?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nice how you copied the theorem and the proof. But you mind telling us what you don't understand, or should we just go through it step by step for you?
 
  • #3
Oi! When I edited the damn thing didn't update. I noticed that as soon as I typed it in. Stupid thing. I've updated now.
 
  • #4
this is a non rigorous proof, where dt is ignored in comparison to t. just think of dt as a small change in t. so wherever a small number is added to a large number, the smaller one is ignored. however if you divide one small number by another small number the result may not be small and should not be ignored.
 
  • #5
I'm sorry. I don't get you.
 
  • #6
The magnetic field is continuous and slowly varying in time in comparison to dt. dt is some very small infinitesimal time increment, so a first order approximation would be that the magnetic field at time t and time t+dt is the same.
 
  • #7
Oh. What does "first order" mean? Does it mean making a good approximation for B as it varies slowly with respect to t?
 
  • #8
first order means that the small number is present as dt. if it is present as a multiple of two small numbers as in dt.ds (or any other thing) it is called second order. second order approximations are even finer and when you are solving problems only crudely, you should ignore all second order terms.
 
  • #9
nirax said:
first order means that the small number is present as dt. if it is present as a multiple of two small numbers as in dt.ds (or any other thing) it is called second order. second order approximations are even finer and when you are solving problems only crudely, you should ignore all second order terms.

To more explicitly show this you would want to do an expansion of f(t+dt).

[tex] f(t+\Delta t) = f(t) + \Delta t f'(t) + \Delta t^2 \frac{1}{2}f''(t) + O(\Delta t^3) [/tex]

So the first order approximation would drop any terms with \Delta t and above. Keeping the first two terms would be the second order approximation and so on.
 
  • #10
let me put it in new words but same in spirit to born2bwire

suppose you want to check the value of [tex](t+\Delta t)(s+ \Delta s)[/tex]. you expand this as [tex](t.s + s.\Delta t + t.\Delta s + \Delta t .\Delta s)[/tex]. now what you should take depends upon how closely you want to approximate.

1. suppose you want a very crude answer, you just ignore all the small terms (ie the ones involving [tex]\Delta[/tex]'s). you get [tex]t.s[/tex]. this is zeroth order approximation.

2. if you want to approximate more closely, you keep all terms involving single [tex]\Delta[/tex]'s. that gives you [tex](t.s + s.\Delta t + t.\Delta s )[/tex]. this wud be termed as first order approximation.

3. if you are still not satisfied you can keep the terms involving two (or less) [tex]\Delta[/tex]'s. that gives you full [tex](t.s + s.\Delta t + t.\Delta s + \Delta t .\Delta s)[/tex]. we call this second order approximation. in this case it turns out that this is exact. but there may be cases where third or more orders of approximation is useful.

i think you get the general idea.
 
  • #11
Right. That cleared it up. Thanks guys!
 

FAQ: Don't understand something in proof

What is the purpose of a proof?

A proof is a logical argument that verifies the truth of a statement or theorem. It is used to demonstrate the validity of a mathematical or scientific claim.

Why is it important to understand a proof?

Understanding a proof is crucial because it allows us to see how a statement or theorem is derived from basic axioms and definitions. It also helps us to identify any flaws or errors in the argument.

What are the key components of a proof?

A proof typically consists of a set of assumptions or axioms, logical reasoning and deductive steps, and a conclusion that follows from the premises. It may also include diagrams, equations, and other supporting evidence to illustrate the argument.

How can I improve my understanding of a proof?

To improve your understanding of a proof, it is important to break it down into smaller, more manageable steps. You can also try to restate the argument in your own words, ask questions, and seek clarification from others.

What should I do if I still don't understand a proof?

If you are struggling to understand a proof, it may be helpful to seek guidance from a teacher, tutor, or colleague. You can also try looking for alternative proofs or explanations online or in textbooks.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
964
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top