Skip to main content
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

I'm afraid there's no nuance at all Julia. The "mutual induction" explanation is wrong. E and B are in phase because they're space and time derivatives. See this answerthis answer where I used a canoe analogy.

I'm afraid there's no nuance at all Julia. The "mutual induction" explanation is wrong. E and B are in phase because they're space and time derivatives. See this answer where I used a canoe analogy.

I'm afraid there's no nuance at all Julia. The "mutual induction" explanation is wrong. E and B are in phase because they're space and time derivatives. See this answer where I used a canoe analogy.

deleted 6 characters in body
Source Link
John Duffield
  • 11.3k
  • 6
  • 33
  • 56

There aren't really two different fields, there's one field, and two derivatives of it. Spatial and time.

That's not quite right because there's only one field there. Electromagnetic field interactions typically result in linear and/or rotational force. When we only see linear force we typically talk of an E field, when we only see rotational motion we typically talk of a B field, but these result from Fμν field interactions.

There aren't really two different fields, there's one field, and two derivatives of it. Spatial and time.

That's not quite right because there's only one field there.

There aren't really two different fields, there's one field, and two derivatives. Spatial and time.

That's not quite right because there's only one field there. Electromagnetic field interactions typically result in linear and/or rotational force. When we only see linear force we typically talk of an E field, when we only see rotational motion we typically talk of a B field, but these result from Fμν field interactions.

added 9 characters in body
Source Link
John Duffield
  • 11.3k
  • 6
  • 33
  • 56

This seems to be wrong...

This seems to be wrong...

Shrug. There is no correct causal statement at all.

This seems to be wrong...

There is no correct causal statement at all.

This seems to be wrong...

Shrug. There is no correct causal statement at all.

Source Link
John Duffield
  • 11.3k
  • 6
  • 33
  • 56
Loading