Notation question for Maxwell's Equations.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving Maxwell's equations from the wave equation involving the 4-potential. It explains that the equation \nabla \cdot \textbf{B} = 0 arises from the property that the divergence of a curl is zero, indicating the nonexistence of magnetic monopoles. The second equation, \nabla \times \textbf{E} + \frac{\partial \textbf{B}}{\partial t} = 0, is linked to Ampère's law, showing how a time-varying magnetic field relates to the circulation of the electric field. The conversation also touches on the role of the current density j^\mu in this context, with a request for clarification on its significance. Understanding these relationships is crucial for comprehending electromagnetic theory as presented in Halzen Martin.
neutrino33
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I know I may be in the wrong place, but I think I'll get a quicker and better response here. My question is:

How do
\nabla \cdot \textbf{B} = 0
and
\nabla \times \textbf{E} + \frac{\partial \textbf{B}}{\partial t} = 0
derive from
\Box^2 A^\mu -\partial^\mu(\partial_\nu A^\nu) = j^\mu?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The equations you are thinking of are implicit in the fact that you are using a 4-potential.

Because

B = \nabla x A

then

\nabla \cdot B = \nabla \cdot \nabla x A

Because the divergence of a curl is 0 (or there is no boundary of a boundary, or the exterior derivative is nilpotent, or whatever your favorite math expression is)

Using

E = -\nabla A^0 -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} A

You can take the curl to get the standard

\nabla x E = -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} B
 
del.B=0,is nonexistence of magnetic monopole, and the second equation is ampere's law where the time varying magnetic field depends on circulation of electric field.This all equation can be found by using wave equation.
 
ParticleGrl said:
The equations you are thinking of are implicit in the fact that you are using a 4-potential.

Because

B = \nabla x A

then

\nabla \cdot B = \nabla \cdot \nabla x A

Because the divergence of a curl is 0 (or there is no boundary of a boundary, or the exterior derivative is nilpotent, or whatever your favorite math expression is)

Using

E = -\nabla A^0 -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} A

You can take the curl to get the standard

\nabla x E = -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} B

I buy that. I don't see, however, what happens to the j^\mu.
 
It would be useful to know that the LaTex code for vector/cross product would be: \times [ itex] \times [/itex].
 
This is what I'm working on. It is from Halzen Martin.
 

Attachments

  • HM.jpg
    HM.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 524
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top