Contents

Electric-field integral equation

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (April 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article. There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The electric-field integral equation is a relationship that allows the calculation of an electric field (E) generated by an electric current distribution (J).

Derivation[edit]

When all quantities in the frequency domain are considered, a time-dependency ${\displaystyle e^{jwt}}$ that is suppressed throughout is assumed.

Beginning with the Maxwell equations relating the electric and magnetic field, and assuming a linear, homogeneous media with permeability ${\displaystyle \mu }$ and permittivity ${\displaystyle \varepsilon \,}$:

Following the third equation involving the divergenceofH

${\displaystyle \Phi }$

${\displaystyle k=\omega {\sqrt {\mu \varepsilon }}}$

As we have only specified the curl of A, we are free to define the divergence, and choose the following:

${\displaystyle G(\mathbf {r} ,\mathbf {r} ^{\prime })}$

We can now write what is called the electric field integral equation (EFIE), relating the electric field E to the vector potential A

We can further represent the EFIE in the dyadic form as

${\displaystyle \mathbf {G} (\mathbf {r} ,\mathbf {r} ^{\prime })\,}$

Interpretation[edit]

The EFIE describes a radiated field E given a set of sources J, and as such it is the fundamental equation used in antenna analysis and design. It is a very general relationship that can be used to compute the radiated field of any sort of antenna once the current distribution on it is known. The most important aspect of the EFIE is that it allows us to solve the radiation/scattering problem in an unbounded region, or one whose boundary is located at infinity. For closed surfaces, it is possible to use the Magnetic Field Integral Equation or the Combined Field Integral Equation, both of which result in a set of equations with improved condition number compared to the EFIE. However, the MFIE and CFIE can still contain resonances.

In scattering problems, it is desirable to determine an unknown scattered field ${\displaystyle E_{s}}$ that is due to a known incident field ${\displaystyle E_{i}}$. Unfortunately, the EFIE relates the scattered field to J, not the incident field, so we do not know what J is. This sort of problem can be solved by imposing the boundary conditions on the incident and scattered field, allowing one to write the EFIE in terms of ${\displaystyle E_{i}}$ and J alone. Once this has been done, the integral equation can then be solved by a numerical technique appropriate to integral equations such as the method of moments.

Notes[edit]

By the Helmholtz theorem a vector field is described completely by its divergence and curl. As the divergence was not defined, we are justified by choosing the Lorenz Gauge condition above provided that we consistently use this definition of the divergence of A in all subsequent analysis. However, other choices for ${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {A} }$ are just as valid and lead to other equations, which all describe the same phenomena, and the solutions of the equations for any choice of ${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {A} }$ lead to the same electromagnetic fields, and the same physical predictions about the fields and charges are accelerated by them.

It is natural to think that if a quantity exhibits this degree of freedom in its choice, then it should not be interpreted as a real physical quantity. After all, if we can freely choose ${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {A} }$ to be anything, then ${\displaystyle \mathbf {A} }$ is not unique. One may ask: what is the "true" value of ${\displaystyle \mathbf {A} }$ measured in an experiment? If ${\displaystyle \mathbf {A} }$ is not unique, then the only logical answer must be that we can never measure the value of ${\displaystyle \mathbf {A} }$. On this basis, it is often stated that it is not a real physical quantity and it is believed that the fields ${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} }$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {B} }$ are the true physical quantities.

However, there is at least one experiment in which value of the ${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} }$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {B} }$ are both zero at the location of a charged particle, but it is nevertheless affected by the presence of a local magnetic vector potential; see the Aharonov–Bohm effect for details. Nevertheless, even in the Aharonov–Bohm experiment, the divergence ${\displaystyle \mathbf {A} }$ never enters the calculations; only ${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {A} }$ along the path of the particle determines the measurable effect.

References[edit]