Charge density and current density

Electromagnetic effects happen by the existence of moving particles with charge. We can imagine that we have infinite charged particles, and their movement being described by infinite curves. But this is not the optimal way to think of them.

First of all, recall that when we study a really large number of mass particles in classical mechanics is better to pass to continuum mechanics. This way, we substitute a huge number of positions by a distribution of mass density (a 3-form, if we are in 3D space). We "count" how many particles are in a infinitesimal cube centred at \((x,y,z)\) and construct the differential form
\[
\omega=\rho(x,y,z)dxdydz
\]
that let us recover the mass which is enclosed by a volume \(V\) by means of
\[
\int_V \rho(x,y,z)dxdydz
\]





In what follows, we will work with two spatial dimensions, to get clearer pictures. So we have a mass density
\[
\omega=\rho(x,y,t)dxdy
\]


(observe we have made our density depends on time, by the way).

But this is not the whole story. Because although we let \(\rho\) depends on \(t\), this do not capture the movement of the infinite particles. The differential form \(\omega\) only tell us how many particles are there in the infinitesimal red square in any time \(t\).



So we must include three new quantities to code directions: \(j_x\), \(j_y\) and \(j_z\). Let's speak about \(j_x\), the others are analogous: it will represent the number of particles that pass through an infinitesimal segment (\(dy\) in the picture above) in an infinitesimal amount of time \(dt\). If we pass to a spacetime diagram, we observe that we are speaking about something totally analogous to the density, but instead of a pure spatial window (the square \(dxdy\)) we look at a spacetime window \(dydt\)


This points to the ideas of Special Relativity, which treats space and time on an equal footing. In fact, we can collect them all in a 4-vector \( J^{\mu}=(\rho, j_x,j_y,j_z)\) that tranforms well according to Lorentz transformations.



If we use charge instead of mass, we can perform the same analysis. In this case \(\rho\) is called charge density and \(j=(j_x,j_y,j_z)\) is called current density. Just as mass is data that determines the behavior of a system when gravity acts, \(\rho\) and \(j\) are data to specify the electromagnetic field. \( J^{\mu}\) is called the four-current.

If we assume that no charge can dissapear from one place and appear into other without going through the wall of the laboratory (local charge conservation)  we get the continuity equation

\[
\partial_{\mu} J^{\mu}=0
\]
or also
\[
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}=-\left(\frac{\partial j_{x}}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial j_{y}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial j_{z}}{\partial z}\right)
\]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

About the definition of angle, from Geometric Algebra

Image
In GA, bivectors represent  2-dimensional directions. Any simple bivector can be written as \[ \theta e_1e_2 \] with \(\theta \in \mathbb{R}\) and \(\{e_i\}\) unitary and orthogonal vectors. The unitary vectors specify the 2- direction itself, and \(\theta\) is the size (analogous to the length of a vector, that is a 1-dimensional direction). Given two vectors \(a\) and \(b\) (that we take to be unitary, wlog) we say that the simple bivector \(\theta e_1e_2\) is the angle formed by them if \[ ab=e^{\theta e_1 e_2} \] where we take as a definition \[ e^A=1+A+A^2 /2+\cdots=\lim_N (1+\frac{A}{N})^N \] Real analysis let us assure that this expression is well defined when \(A\) is a 2-blade. In fact, since \(e_1e_2e_1e_2=-1\), we can write \[ e^{\theta e_1 e_2}=cos(\theta)+e_1 e_2sin(\theta) \] where \(cos\) and \(sin\) are defined by their power series. Oserve that \(b=a e^{\theta e_1 e_2}\) and then \[ b=a(cos(\theta)+e_1 e_2sin(\theta))=a\cdot cos(\theta)+ ae_1e_2 \cdot sin(\theta...
Read more

Spherical, hyperbolic and parabolic geometry

Image
Let's consider the space \(\mathbb{M}^4\), that is, the manifold \(\mathbb{R}^4\) with coordinates \((x,y,z,t)\) but with the pseudo-Riemannian metric given in each tangent space by \[ ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-dt^2. \] This metric is left invariant by the group \(O(3,1)\) when acting on \(\mathbb{M}^4\). It also leaves invariant the cone \[ t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=0 \] so is logical that we pay attention to it. Now, following TRTR from Penrose page 423, we can consider the family of hyperplanes inside \(\mathbb{M}^4\) given by \[ z+t+\lambda(t-z)=2 \] intersecting our cone in different 2-dimensional submanifolds \(P_{\lambda}\) of \(\mathbb{M}^4\). Here we have a picture from that book, where we consider only \((x,z,t)\) for purposes of drawability. If we analyse the case \(\lambda=0\), we observe that we obtain the submanifold \(P_0\), \(E\) in the picture with a shape of a parabola, given by the embedding \begin{align*}   \phi \colon \mathbb{R}^2 &\longrightarrow \mathbb{M}^4\\   (u_...
Read more

4-dimensional spheres, or haunting an ant

Image
In this post, we will try to explain a little bit what it feels like to live in a 4-dimensional world. First, we will see that we can enter the inside of a normal sphere without breaking the wall. And secondly, we will try to describe what we would feel if our world were not the classic 3D universe, known as \(\mathbb{R}^3\), but another 3-dimensional space called \(S^3\). But before we start, let's name things. The circles we all know have a more technical name for mathematicians: \(S^1\). On the other hand, a sphere (let's say, a ball) is called \(S^2\). This similarity in names is not accidental: since we were children, we intuitively knew that circles and spheres have something in common. In fact, they are "the same" except for the detail that circles are 1-dimensional (you can only move forward or backward), and spheres are 2-dimensional (if you lived in one, you could move forward-backward, but also left-right. Oops, actually, we live in one). Now let's ...
Read more