M.No. 2.
Maxwell’s Equations
Electrodynamics before Maxwell
So far, we have encountered the following laws, specifying the divergence and curl
of electric and magnetic fields:
1
(i) E ρ (Gauss’s law for electricity),
ε0
(ii) B 0 (Gauss’s law for magnetism),
B
(iii) E (Faraday’s law)
t
(iv) B μ 0 J (Ampere’s law)
These equations represent the state of electromagnetic theory over a century ago,
when Maxwell began his work. They were not written in so compact a form in those
days, but their physical content was familiar. Now, it happens there is a fatal
inconsistency in these formulas. It has to do with the old rule that divergence of curl
is always zero. If you apply the divergence to number (iii), everything works out:
B
E B
t t
The left side is zero because divergence of curl is zero; the right side is zero by
virtue of equation (ii). But when you do the same thing to number (iv), you get into
trouble:
B μ 0 J ------------ (1)
the left side must be zero, but the right side, in general, is not. For steady currents,
the divergence of J is zero, but evidently when we go beyond magneto statics
Ampere’s law cannot be right. There’s another way to see that Ampere’s law is
bound to fail for non steady currents. Suppose we’re in the process of charging up
a capacitor (Fig. 1). In integral form, Ampere’s law reads
B dl μ0Ienc
In this case, the simplest surface lies in the plane of the loop - the wire punctures
this surface, so Ienc = I. Fine-but what if we draw instead the balloon-shaped
surface in Fig. 1? No current passes through this surface, and we conclude that Ienc
= 0! We never had this problem in magneto statics because the conflict arises only
when charge is piling up somewhere (in this case, on the capacitor plates). But for
non steady currents (such as this one) “the current enclosed by a loop” is an ill-
defined notion, since it depends entirely on what surface we use. Remember that
the Amperian loop could be some contorted shape that doesn’t even lie in a plane.
Of course, we had no right to expect Ampere’s law to hold outside of magneto
statics; after all, we derived it from the Biot-Savart law. However, in Maxwell’s time
there was no experimental reason to doubt that Ampere’s law was of wider validity.
The law was a purely theoretical one, and Maxwell fixed it by purely theoretical
argument ts.
How Maxwell Fixed Ampere’s Law
The problem is on the right side of Eq. (1) which should be zero, but isn’t. Applying
ρ
the continuity equation J and Gauss’s law, the offending term can be
t
rewritten:
ρ E
J ε 0 E ε 0
t t t
It might occur to you that if we were to combine ε0 (E / t ) with J, in Ampere’s law, it
would be just right to kill off the extra divergence:
E
B μ 0 J μ 0ε 0 ---------- (2)
t
Such a modification changes nothing, as far as magneto statics is concerned: when
E is constant, we still have ∇ x B = µ0J. In fact, Maxwell’s term is hard to detect in
ordinary electromagnetic experiments, where it must compete for recognition with
J; that’s why Faraday and the others never discovered it in the laboratory.
However, it plays a crucial role in the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Apart
from curing the defect in Ampere’s law, Maxwell’s term has a certain aesthetic
appeal: Just as a changing magnetic field induced an electric field (Faraday’s law),
so A changing electric field induces a magnetic field.
Of course, theoretical convenience and aesthetic consistency are only suggestive-
there might, after all, be other ways to doctor up Ampere’s law. The real
confirmation of Maxwell’s theory came in 1888 with Hertz’s experiments on
electromagnetic waves. Maxwell called his extra term the displacement current
density.
E
J d ε0 --------- (3)
t
It’s a misleading name, since ε0 (E/t ) has nothing to do with current, except that it
adds to J in Ampere’s law. Let’s see now how the displacement current density
resolves the paradox of the charging capacitor (Fig. 1). If the capacitor plates are
very close together, then the electric field between them is
1 1 Q
E ,
ε0 ε0 A
where Q is the charge on the plate and A is its area. Thus, between the plates
E 1 dQ 1
I
t ε 0 A dt ε 0 A
E
Now, Eq. 2 reads, in integral form. B dl μ I
0 enc μ 0ε 0 da ----- (4)
t
If we choose the flat surface, then E = 0 and Ienc = I. If, on the other hand, we use
the balloon-shaped surface, then Ienc = 0, but (E / t ) da I / ε0 . So we get the same
answer for either surface, though in the first case it comes from the genuine current
and in the second from the displacement current.
Maxwell’s Equations
In the last section we put the finishing touches on Maxwell’s equations:
1
(i) E ρ (Gauss’s law for electricity),
ε0
(ii) B 0 (Gauss’s law for magnetism), --------- (5)
B
(iii) E (Faraday’s law)
t
E
(iv) B μ 0 J μ 0ε 0 (Ampere’s law with Maxwell’s correction).
t
Together with the force law, F = q (E + v x B), ------------- (6)
they summarize the entire theoretical content of classical electrodynamics. Even
the continuity equation,
ρ
J , ------------- (7)
t
which is the mathematical expression of conservation of charge, can be derived
from Maxwell’s equations by applying divergence to number (iv). We have written
Maxwell’s equations in the traditional way, which emphasizes that they specify the
divergence and curl of E and B. In this form they reinforce the notion that electric
fields can be produced either by charges (ρ) or by changing magnetic fields (B / t ) ,
and magnetic fields can be produced either by currents (J) or by changing electric
fields (E / t ) . Actually, this is somewhat misleading, because when you come right
down to it B / t and E / t are themselves due to charges and currents. I think it is
logically preferable to write
with fields (E and B) on the left and the sources (ρ and J) on the right. This notation
emphasizes that all electromagnetic fields are ultimately attributable to charges and
currents. Maxwell’s equations tell you how charges produce fields; reciprocally, the
forces law tells you how fields affect charges.
Maxwell’s Equations in Matter
Maxwell’s equations in the form eq. 5 are complete and correct as they stand.
However, when you are working materials that are subject to electric and magnetic
polarization there is a more convenient way to write them. For inside polarized
matter there will be accumulations of “bound” charge and current over which you
exert no direct control. It would be nice to reformulate Maxwell’s equations in such
a way as to make explicit reference only to those sources we control directly: the
“free” charges and currents.
We have already learned, from the static case, that an electric polarization P
produces a bound charge density
ρb = - ∇. P --------- (9)
Likewise, a magnetic polarization (or “magnetization”) M results in a bound current
Jb = ∇ x M --------- (10)
There’s just one new feature to consider in the nonstatic case: Any change in the
electric polarization involves a flow of (bound) charge (call it Jp), which must be
included in the total current. For suppose we examine a tiny chunk of polarized
material (Fig. 2) The polarization introduces a charge density σb = P at one end and
- σb at the other. If P now increases a bit, the charge on each end increases
accordingly, giving a net current
σ b P
dI da da
t t
P
The current density, therefore, is Jp ------------ (11)
t
This polarization current has nothing whatever to do with the bound current Jb.
The latter is associated with magnetization of the material and involved the spin
and orbital motion of electrons; Jp, by contrast, is the result of the linear motion of
charge when the electric polarization changes. If P points to the right and is
increasing, then each plus charge moves a bit to the right and each minus charge
to the left; the cumulative effect is the polarization current Jp. In this connection, we
ought to check that Eq.11 is consistent with the continuity equation:
P ρ
Jp ( P) b
t t t
Yes: The continuity equation is satisfied; in fact, Jp is essential to account for the
conservation of bound charge. (Incidentally, a changing magnetization does not
lead to any analogous accumulation of charge or current. The bound current
Jb = ∇ x M varies in response to changes in M, to be sure, but that’s about it.)
In view of all this, the total charge density can be separated into two parts:
ρ ρf ρb ρf P ----------- (12)
P
and the current density into three parts: J J f J b J p J f M -------- (13)
t
1
Gauss’s law can now be written as E (ρ P) or D ρf ----------- (14)
ε0 f
where D, as in the static case, is given by D ε0E P ----------- (15)
Meanwhile, Ampere’s law (with Maxwell’s term) becomes
P E D
B μ 0 J f M μ 0ε 0 or H Jf ---------- (16)
t t t
1
where, H B M ------------ (17)
μ0
Faraday’s law and ∇.B = 0 are not affected by our separation of charge and current
into free and bound parts, since they do not involve ρ or J.
In terms of free charges and currents, then, Maxwell’s equations read
Some people regard these as the “true” Maxwell’s equations, but please
understand that they are in no way more “general” than eq. 5; they simply reflect a
convenient division of charge and current into free and nonfree parts. And they
have the disadvantages of hybrid notation, since they contain both E and D, both B
and H. They must be supplemented, therefore, by appropriate constitutive
relations, giving D and H in terms of E and B. These depend on the nature of the
material; for linear media
P ε0χ eE and M χ m H ---------- (19)
1
so D εE and H B ----------- (20)
μ
where ε ε0 (1 χ e ) and μ μ 0 (1 χ m ) . Incidentally, you’ll remember that D is called the
electric “displacement”; that’s why the second term in the Ampere/Maxwell equation
(iv) is called the displacement current density, generalizing Eq. 3:
D
Jd ------------ (21)
t
Boundary Conditions
In general, the fields E, B, D, and H will be discontinuous at a boundary between
two different media, or at a surface that carries charge density σ or current density
K. The explicit form of these discontinuities can be deduced from Maxwell’s
equations in their integral form
(i) S D da Qfenc
Over any closed surface S.
(ii) B da 0
S
d
(iii) S E dl dt S B da
for any surface S bounded by the closed loop P.
d
(iv) H dl Ifenc D da
S
dt S
Applying to a tiny, Maxwell’s - thin pillbox extending just slightly into the material on
either side of the boundary, we obtain (Fig. 3):
D1 a D2 a σf a
(The positive direction for a is from 2 toward 1. The edge of the wafer contributes
nothing in the limit as the thickness goes to zero, nor does any volume change
density.) Thus, the component of D that is perpendicular to the interface is
discontinuous in the amount
D1 D2 σf ---------- (22)
Identical reasoning, applied to equation (ii), yields B1 B2 0 ---------- (23)
Turning to (iii), a very thin Amperian loop straddling the surface (Fig. 4) gives
d
dt S
E1 l E2 l B da
But in the limit as the width of the loop goes to zero, the flux vanishes. Therefore,
E1 E2 0 -------------- (24)
That is, the components of E parallel to the interface are continuous across the
boundary. By the same token, (iv) implies
H1 l H2 l Ifenc
where Ifenc is the free current passing through the loop. No volume current density
will contribute (in the limit of infinitesimal width) but a surface current can. In fact, if
n̂ is a unit vector perpendicular to the interface (pointing from 2 toward 1), so that
ˆ l) is normal to the Amperian loop, then
(n
ˆ l) (K f nˆ ) l
Ifenc K f (n
and hence H1 H2 K f nˆ ----------- (25)
So the parallel components of H are discontinuous by an amount proportional to
the free surface current density.
Equations 22 - 25 are the general boundary conditions for electrodynamics. In the
case of linear media, they can be expressed in terms of E and B alone:
In particular, if there is no free charge or free current at the interface, then
