Wednesday, December 25, 2019

electromagnetism - Deriving Heaviside-Feynman formula for the electric field of an arbitrarily moving charge from Lienard-Wiechert potential


I've been trying to derive this (which Feynman warns takes a lot of work) for a couple of days now, without success. My current best derivation which however doesn't give the right answer is:


First, realizing that to go from derivatives with respect to time, t, to ones with respect to retarded time, t=trc, we need:


dtdt=1˙rc


Where r=|r|=|r1r2(t)| Where r1 and r2(t) are the fixed (time-independent) position vector of the observation point and the retarded position vector of the charge (at time t), respectively. And the dot represents derivation with respect to t


The Lienard-Wiechert potentials are:



ϕ(r1,t)=q4πϵ0(rvrc) A(r1,t)=qv4πϵ0c2(rvrc)


Where v=dr2dt|t=trc; that is, the standard retarded velocity.


Now, it is useful to note:


11vrrc=11+drdtc=11+˙rc˙r=1˙rc


Where we have used (1) to transform the time derivative.


Then I rewrite the LW potentials as:


ϕ(r1,t)=q4πϵ0r(1˙rc) A(r1,t)=q˙r4πϵ0c2r


Finally, I can work out the electric field:


E=ϕAt=q4πϵ0(rr3(1˙rc)1rc˙r+((1˙rc)1r2drdt1rddt(1˙rc))rc+¨rc2r˙r˙rc2r2)


Where the spatial gradient is with respect to r1, and where I've had to derive with respect to r1 directly and then with respect to t because it too depends on r1 through r. Now, ˙r=t(r)=t(rr) because these partial derivatives commute. Finally, I can again convert the time derivatives using (1) so:



E=q4πϵ0(rr3r˙rr3c+1rct(rr)+¨rc2r˙r˙rc2r2rrc(˙rr2+¨rr(c˙r)))=q4πϵ0(rr3+rct(rr3)+1c2(¨rr˙r˙rr2r¨rcr2(c˙r)))


The first two terms are right but the third, although close, isn't right (specially annoying is that c˙r in the denominator). The actual equation is found in Feynman's Lectures on Physics. I've found a paper (pages 22-23) that says that the Heaviside-Feynman formula can't actually be derived from the LW potentials, but I don't know, I think I trust Feynman more. Has anyone here done this derivation?



Answer



I finally found my mistake!


As I commented in Art Brown's answer, after thinking more about it after a lecture we had today, I realized that I was computing my gradient with respect to r1 wrongly. That is, I thought, in my derivation above, that


(r)=rr


However this is wrong, because I just differentiated with respect to the explicit r1 in the r=r1r2(t). However, there's r1-dependence in the r2 too because t=trc depends on r1!


To take this into account we must derive implicitly in order to get an expression for this gradient:


(r)=rrrrdr2dt((r)c)


Rearranging, and noting dr2dt=v,



(r)=rr11rvrc=rr(1˙rc)


Where I used equation (2) in my question. Now, I can evaluate ϕ again:


4πϵ0qϕ=1r2(1˙rc)(r)+1rct(r)=1r2rr(1˙rc)2+1rct(rr(1˙rc))=1r2rr(12˙rc+˙r2c2)+1rc(1˙rc)t(rr)rr2¨rc2=rr3+rct(rr3)+2r˙r2r3c2˙r˙rr2c2r¨rr2c2


Now, the first two terms are right again! Let's see if we can get the third when computing E :


E=ϕAt=q4πϵ0(rr3+rct(rr3)+2r˙r2r3c2˙r˙rr2c2r¨rr2c2+¨rc2r˙r˙rc2r2)=q4πϵ0(rr3+rct(rr3)+1c22t2(rr))


Which is the right Heaviside-Feynman formula! :D


No comments:

Post a Comment

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...