Feynman Expression for the field of a point charge

In summary, Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, chapter 6, derives the equation for the electric field of a moving point charge. The equation, given in 6.57, involves the charge density and current density, and a vector that points to the point charge. The second term of the equation, involving a retardation factor, does not reduce to the first term in the Feynman formula. The derivation of this formula is outlined in another book, The Classical Electromagnetic Field, and involves showing that the time derivatives of the retarded time and position are related to the velocity and retardation factor.
  • #1
Telemachus
835
30

Hi there. I'm reading Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics.

1. Homework Statement


In chapter 6, the equation for the electric field of a moving point charge is derived.

I could follow the mathematics to get the electric field for the moving charge, which is given in equation 6.57 in Jackson.

##\displaystyle \vec E(\vec x,t) = \frac{q}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left ( \left [ \frac{\hat R}{kR^2} \right ]_{ret}+\frac{\partial}{c \partial t} \left [ \frac{\hat R}{kR} \right ]_{ret} - \frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left [ \frac{\vec v}{kR} \right ]_{ret} \right )##

Where ##\vec R=\vec x-\vec x'## is the vector from the source point ## \vec x'## to the observation point ##\vec x##, ##R=\left |\vec x-\vec x' \right |##, ##\hat R=\frac{\vec R}{R}##.

The charge density has been used to get this formula, and the current density, which are given by: ##\rho (x',t')=q\delta (\vec x'-\vec r_0(t'))##, ##\vec J(\vec x',t')=\rho \vec v(t')##, and ##\vec r_0(t')## is the vector that points to the point charge.

##\displaystyle k=1- \frac{v(t´)}{c} \cdot \hat R## and ret means that what's inside the square brackets must be evaluated at the retarded time ##t'=t-\frac{R}{c}##

2. Homework Equations

The Feynman expression for the field reads

## \displaystyle \vec E(\vec x,t) = \frac{q}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left ( \left [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} \right ]_{ret}+\frac{ [R]_{ret} \partial }{c \partial t} \left [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} \right ]_{ret} + \frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left [ \hat R \right]_{ret} \right ) ##

I'm having trouble to get this last expresion.

3. The Attempt at a Solution

In principle I should have:

##\displaystyle \left [ \frac{ \hat R }{ kR^2 } \right ]_{ret}=\left [ \frac{ \hat R }{ R^2 } \right ]_{ret}##

But I don't see how to get this. It looks like:

##\displaystyle \left [ \frac{1}{k} \right ]_{ret}=1##, but I couldn't get this result. The other expresions are even more complicated, because of the time derivatives, but I wanted to start with this one, which looks simpler.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think I have realized why that factor has to be one inside the retarded brackets. It is actually a retardation factor, so I think that's the reason. Anyway, I would like to find a rigorous demonstration.
 
  • #3
This is a fairly tedious exercise.

##\left [ \frac{1}{k} \right ]_{ret} \neq 1##. So, the first term of equation (6.57) does not reduce to the first term of the Feynman formula.
In the printing of the 3rd edition of Jackson that I have access to, the equation is (6.58) rather than (6.57).

The book The Classical Electromagnetic Field by L. Eyges outlines the derivation but leaves most of the algebra to the reader. The key steps are:

(1) Show that ##\frac{dt}{dt'}= 1- \left [\vec{v} \cdot \hat{R}/c \right ]_{ret} = \left [ k \right ]_{ret}##

(2) Show that ##\left [ \frac{1}{k} \right ]_{ret} = \frac{dt'}{dt} = 1 - \frac{d}{dt} \left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}##

(3) Show that ##\vec{v}_{ret} = - \left [ k \right ]_{ret} \frac{d}{dt} \left [\vec{R} \right ]_{ret}##

Use these relations to reduce (6.57) to the Feynman formula. When I tried it I got lots of terms. But quite a few of the terms canceled to give the result.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #4
Thank you (you're right, its eq. 6.58).
 
  • #5
TSny said:
(1) Show that ##\frac{dt}{dt'}= 1- \left [\vec{v} \cdot \hat{R}/c \right ]_{ret} = \left [ k \right ]_{ret}##
Ok. I've found this.

I'll show you the steps, because I had trouble in part 2.

##\displaystyle t'=t-\frac{\left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{c}## (for simplicity the primed ' denotes that must be evaluated at the retarded time)

Then: ##\displaystyle \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}=1-\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{\partial t'} \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}##

Then, using that:

##\displaystyle \frac{\partial \left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{\partial t'}=\frac{\partial \left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{\partial \vec r_0'}\frac{\partial \vec r_0'}{\partial t'}=-\hat R \cdot \vec v(t')##

Where I have used: ##\displaystyle \frac{\partial \left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{\partial \vec r_0'}=-\hat R## and ##\vec v(t')=\displaystyle \frac{\partial \vec r_0'}{\partial t'}##

So I get the desired result: ##\displaystyle \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{1-\frac{\vec v(t')}{c}\cdot \hat R}##
(2) Show that ##\left [ \frac{1}{k} \right ]_{ret} = \frac{dt'}{dt} = 1 - \frac{d}{dt} \left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}##
Now for this I've used that ##t=t'+\frac{\left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{c}##

Then: ##\displaystyle \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}=1+\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{\partial t} \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}##

But now: ##\displaystyle \frac{\partial \left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial \left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{\partial \vec r_0'}\frac{\partial \vec r_0'}{\partial t}=-\hat R \cdot \frac{\partial \vec r_0'}{\partial t}##

I'm not sure what ##\displaystyle\frac{\partial \vec r_0'}{\partial t}## represents. Is it just the velocity at the current time? I don't know if it has a physical interpretation, now I'm sure its not the current velocity, because it is the (current) time derivative for the retarded position.

Ok, that step wasn't necesary and I just can rewrite it this way.

##\displaystyle \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}=1+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}##
And get the desired result (I have the partial derivative instead of the total derivative, is it the same in this case?)
 
Last edited:
  • #6
OK for (1).

For (2), I don't see how you are getting ##\displaystyle \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}=1+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}##.

We have ##t'=t - \frac{\left |\vec x - \vec r_0' \right |}{c} = t - \left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}##. It seems to me that the result for (2) follows straightaway from this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
##\displaystyle\frac{\partial \vec r_0'}{\partial t}## represents the rate at which the retarded position of the particle changes with respect to the present time. If you are located at the point where you are calculating the field and you could see the particle, then you would of course see the particle at its retarded position. So, ##\displaystyle\frac{\partial \vec r_0'}{\partial t}## represents the rate at which you see the position of the particle changing. It's an "apparent velocity".
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #7
You are right, I see the mistake I've made. I'm getting confused with the variables, even the fist one doesn't agree with the definition you gave for t' I think.

I have ##t=t'+ \displaystyle \left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}##

Then
##\displaystyle \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}=1+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left [ \frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}=1+\frac{\partial |x-r_0'|}{\partial r_0'}\frac{\partial r_0'}{\partial t'}=1-\hat R \cdot \vec v(t') ##.

For (3) I've tried:

##\left [ \vec R \right ]_{ret}=\vec x- \vec r_0'##
Then:

##\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\left [ \vec R \right]_{ret}=\frac{d \vec R}{dt'}\frac{dt'}{dt}=-\frac{d \vec r_0'}{dt'}\frac{dt'}{dt}=-\vec v_{ret} \left (1-\frac{d}{dt} \left [ \frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret} \right)##

I think I've made some mistake here, but I don't know how to get that thing right.

I have also tried using the distance instead of the vector:

##\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\left [ R \right]_{ret}=\frac{d R}{dt'}\frac{dt'}{dt}=-\hat R \cdot v(t') \frac{dt'}{dt}=-\hat R \cdot v(t') \left (1-\frac{d}{dt} \left [ \frac{ R}{c} \right ]_{ret} \right)##

Then

##\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\left [ R \right]_{ret} \left (1-\frac{\hat R \cdot v(t')}{c} \right )=-\hat R \cdot \vec v(t')=[k]_{ret} \frac{d}{dt}\left [ R \right]_{ret}##

##\therefore [\hat R \cdot \vec v]_{ret}=-[k]_{ret} \frac{d}{dt}\left [ R \right]_{ret} ##

Its different in that I have the dot product with the versor ##\hat R##

I couldn't get the result in vector form.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Telemachus said:
You are right, I see the mistake I've made. I'm getting confused with the variables, even the fist one doesn't agree with the definition you gave for t' I think.

##t'## is the retarded time: ##t' = t - \frac{1}{c} \left [ R \right]_{ret} ##

I have ##t=t'+ \displaystyle \left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}##

Then
##\displaystyle \frac{\partial t'}{\partial t}=1+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left [ \frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}=1+\frac{\partial |x-r_0'|}{\partial r_0'}\frac{\partial r_0'}{\partial t'}=1-\hat R \cdot \vec v(t') ##.

I'm not sure if you are trying to get (1) or (2), here. For (1), I still think your derivation in post #5 is correct. You found ##\frac{\partial t'}{\partial t} = 1/k'## where ##k' = \left [ k \right ]_{ret} = 1- \frac{1}{c} \left [ \vec{v} \cdot \hat{R}\right ]_{ret}##. You can just flip both sides to get ##\frac{\partial t}{\partial t'} = \left [ k \right ]_{ret}## which is relation (1).

For (3), note that ## \left [ \vec{v} \right ]_{ret} = \frac{\partial \vec{r}_0(t')}{\partial t'} =-\frac{\partial (\vec{x} - \vec{r}_0(t'))}{\partial t'} = - \frac{\partial \vec{R}(t')}{\partial t'} = -\frac{\partial t'}{\partial t} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left [ \vec{R} \right ]_{ret}##.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #9
Thanks. Now how do I plug in all of these terms into the equation for ##\vec E## to get the Feynman expression? don't do it, just give me some hints so I can work it out. It still looks quiet cumbersome, and I don't want to complicate it more than it is by making silly things :p
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Here is where it does get cumbersome. I didn't see any tricks. Just substitute the expressions and then take the time derivatives in the second and third terms. (Note that k cancels out in the third term before taking the time derivative.)
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #11
Is this ok? I'll put an image so I don't have to write all that in Latex.
 

Attachments

  • 2015-04-15-115957.jpg
    2015-04-15-115957.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 509
  • #12
Yes, that will be fine.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #13
The thing in the middle is the ugly one. I have the first and the third term, but I don't see how all that cancels out to get the second term.
 
  • #14
Looks pretty good so far. I'm not sure about your last two terms. It seems to me that the last term should not be there yet. It will be produced by the next to last term. However, in the next to last term it is a bit hard for me to tell if you have a vector symbol over the R at the end of that term.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #15
Telemachus said:
The thing in the middle is the ugly one. I have the first and the third term, but I don't see how all that cancels out to get the second term.

For me, the middle expression of E generated 5 terms and the last expression also generated 5 terms.
 
  • #16
Yes, I just absorbed the R in the denominator into the ##[ \vec R ]_{ret}##. So that's wrong, I was tempted because that gave the term I was looking for :p

Thank you verymuch for your assistance TSny. I'll try to work it out from here, and I'll let you know if I have any trouble.
 
  • #17
Lets see if I'm working the third term propperly:

##\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left [ \frac{\vec v}{kR} \right ]_{ret} =\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{kR} \right ]_{ret} [ \vec v ]_{ret} \right )=-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{kR} \right ]_{ret} [ \vec k ]_{ret} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret} \right )=-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret} \right )##

And:
##-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret} \right )=-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \right ) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret}- \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial^2}{c^2 \partial t^2} [ \vec R ]_{ret} ##
 
  • #18
Telemachus said:
Lets see if I'm working the third term propperly:

##\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left [ \frac{\vec v}{kR} \right ]_{ret} =\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{kR} \right ]_{ret} [ \vec v ]_{ret} \right )=-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{kR} \right ]_{ret} [ \vec k ]_{ret} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret} \right )=-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret} \right )##

And:
##-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret} \right )=-\frac{\partial}{c^2 \partial t} \left ( \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \right ) \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \vec R ]_{ret}- \left [ \frac{1}{R} \right ]_{ret} \frac{\partial^2}{c^2 \partial t^2} [ \vec R ]_{ret} ##

OK. Looks good. Note ##\vec{R} = R \hat{R}##.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #19
I think I'm almost done, I have to do something with the middle term to get it in the form given by Feynmann, but I don't know what precisely. I show you what I did in the pictures. The two terms in the middle in the last picture should give the time derivative of the electric field, but I don't see how to condense those terms.
 

Attachments

  • 2015-04-15-154257.jpg
    2015-04-15-154257.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 483
  • 2015-04-15-154312.jpg
    2015-04-15-154312.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 477
  • 2015-04-15-154332.jpg
    2015-04-15-154332.jpg
    26.5 KB · Views: 503
  • #20
Everything looks OK to me, except in your final expression for E I believe the second terms has the wrong sign. [EDIT: Your sign is correct!]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #21
The sign came from ##\left [ \frac{1}{k} \right ]_{ret} = \frac{dt'}{dt} = 1 - \frac{d}{dt} \left [\frac{R}{c} \right ]_{ret}##, when I replaced in the first term

##[ \frac{\hat R}{kR^2} ]_{ret}=[ \frac{1}{k} ]_{ret} [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} ]_{ret}=(1 - \frac{d}{dt} [\frac{R}{c}]_{ret}) [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} ]_{ret}##

Now, according to the expression I get for ##\vec E## and to the Feynman expression I should have

##[R]_{ret} \frac{\partial }{c \partial t} \left [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} \right ]_{ret} =\frac{1}{c} \left ( [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} ]_{ret} \frac{d}{dt} [R]_{ret}+ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \frac{\hat R}{R} ]_{ret} \right )##

Which is what is left to demonstrate if all the previous is ok.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Sorry. I think your sign is OK. I believe you have the correct result. You just need to show that your middle two terms of E are equivalent to the single middle term of Feynman.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #23
Telemachus said:
##[R]_{ret} \frac{\partial }{c \partial t} \left [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} \right ]_{ret} =\frac{1}{c} \left ( [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} ]_{ret} \frac{d}{dt} [R]_{ret}+ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} [ \frac{\hat R}{R} ]_{ret} \right )##

I think the first term on the right should be negative, which is what you had originally.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #24
Yes, you're right. How can I demonstrate that? that would be the last step.
 
  • #25
You could expand the single term of Feynman and show it gives your two terms.

Note ##[R]_{ret} \frac{\partial }{c \partial t} \left [ \frac{\hat R}{R^2} \right ]_{ret} = [R]_{ret} \frac{\partial }{c \partial t} \left [\frac{1}{R} \cdot \frac{\hat R}{R} \right ]_{ret}##
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus
  • #26
I think I have something wrong, because the two terms I obtain from Feynman expression look different to the terms I obtained. I'll show you what I get in the pic. Now I see that the second term is fine. And the other can be rewritten to obtain what I was looking for :)

Thank you verymuch TSny. You helped me a lot to get what I was looking for.
 

Attachments

  • 2015-04-15-173700.jpg
    2015-04-15-173700.jpg
    33.3 KB · Views: 407
Last edited:
  • #27
OK. Glad it worked out.
 
  • Like
Likes Telemachus

Related to Feynman Expression for the field of a point charge

1. What is the Feynman Expression for the field of a point charge?

The Feynman Expression for the field of a point charge is a mathematical equation that describes the electric field produced by a single, stationary point charge in space. It is given by the equation E = kq/r^2, where E is the electric field, k is the Coulomb constant, q is the magnitude of the point charge, and r is the distance from the point charge to the point where the electric field is being measured.

2. How is the Feynman Expression for the field of a point charge derived?

The Feynman Expression is derived from Coulomb's Law, which states that the force between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of their charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. By rearranging this equation, we can solve for the electric field and obtain the Feynman Expression.

3. What is the significance of the Feynman Expression for the field of a point charge?

The Feynman Expression allows us to calculate the strength and direction of the electric field at any point in space due to a single point charge. This is important in understanding and predicting the behavior of electrically charged particles and objects.

4. Can the Feynman Expression be used for multiple point charges?

Yes, the Feynman Expression can be extended to multiple point charges by using the principle of superposition. This means that the total electric field at any point is the vector sum of the individual electric fields produced by each point charge.

5. Are there any limitations to the Feynman Expression for the field of a point charge?

The Feynman Expression assumes that the point charge is stationary and that the electric field is being measured at a distance far enough away from the point charge so that the effects of other charges can be neglected. It also does not take into account any relativistic effects. Additionally, it is only applicable to point charges and cannot be used for extended objects.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
488
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
680
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
534
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
767
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
770
Back
Top