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′=t−rc, we need:
dt′dt=1−˙rc
Where r=|→r|=|→r1−→r2(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(r−→v⋅→rc) →A(→r1,t)=q→v4πϵ0c2(r−→v⋅→rc)
Where →v=d→r2dt′|t′=t−rc; that is, the standard retarded velocity.
Now, it is useful to note:
11−→v⋅→rrc=11+drdt′c=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=−→∇ϕ−∂→A∂t=−q4πϵ0(−→rr3(1−˙rc)−1rc→∇˙r+((1−˙rc)1r2drdt′−1rddt′(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(→rr3−→r˙rr3c+1rc∂∂t(→rr)+¨→rc2r−˙→r˙rc2r2−→rrc(˙rr2+¨rr(c−˙r)))=q4πϵ0(→rr3+rc∂∂t(→rr3)+1c2(¨→rr−˙→r˙rr2−→r¨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=→r1−→r2(t′). However, there's →r1-dependence in the →r2 too because t′=t−rc depends on →r1!
To take this into account we must derive implicitly in order to get an expression for this gradient:
→∇(r)=→rr−→rr⋅d→r2dt′(−→∇(r)c)
Rearranging, and noting d→r2dt′=→v,
→∇(r)=→rr11−→r⋅→vrc=→rr(1−˙rc)
Where I used equation (2) in my question. Now, I can evaluate −→∇ϕ again:
−4πϵ0q→∇ϕ=1r2(1−˙rc)→∇(r)+1rc∂∂t→∇(r)=1r2→rr(1−˙rc)2+1rc∂∂t(→rr(1−˙rc))=1r2→rr(1−2˙rc+˙r2c2)+1rc(1−˙rc)∂∂t(→rr)−→rr2¨rc2=→rr3+rc∂∂t(→rr3)+2→r˙r2r3c2−˙r˙→rr2c2−→r¨rr2c2
Now, the first two terms are right again! Let's see if we can get the third when computing →E :
→E=−→∇ϕ−∂→A∂t=q4πϵ0(→rr3+rc∂∂t(→rr3)+2→r˙r2r3c2−˙r˙→rr2c2−→r¨rr2c2+¨→rc2r−˙→r˙rc2r2)=q4πϵ0(→rr3+rc∂∂t(→rr3)+1c2∂2∂t2(→rr))
Which is the right Heaviside-Feynman formula! :D
No comments:
Post a Comment