Timeline for Is Biot-Savart Law valid for time-varying currents unlike Ampere's law?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 14, 2016 at 8:59 | vote | accept | Newton | ||
| Jul 6, 2016 at 7:19 | vote | accept | Newton | ||
| Jul 14, 2016 at 8:59 | |||||
| S Jul 6, 2016 at 7:19 | history | bounty ended | Newton | ||
| S Jul 6, 2016 at 7:19 | history | notice removed | Newton | ||
| Jul 5, 2016 at 17:04 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/750374708844134401 | ||
| Jul 5, 2016 at 15:29 | history | edited | Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 5, 2016 at 12:30 | history | edited | user36790 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 20 characters in body
|
| S Jul 5, 2016 at 12:28 | history | suggested | auden | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatted equations
|
| Jul 5, 2016 at 12:18 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 5, 2016 at 12:28 | |||||
| S Jul 2, 2016 at 12:13 | history | bounty started | Newton | ||
| S Jul 2, 2016 at 12:13 | history | notice added | Newton | Improve details | |
| Jun 28, 2016 at 15:45 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 94 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Jun 28, 2016 at 14:35 | history | edited | Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 296 characters in body
|
| Jun 28, 2016 at 14:19 | comment | added | octonion | This is just semantics, but I'm pretty sure most here are using "Ampere's law" to mean the form without the Maxwell term. | |
| Jun 28, 2016 at 11:38 | comment | added | honeste_vivere | Ampere's law is given by: $$\nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mu_{o} \ \mathbf{j} + \frac{1}{c^{2}} \frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}$$ and the divergence of 2nd term on the right-hand side is not necessarily zero. | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 21:28 | comment | added | CuriousOne | The exact field of a moving point charge is well known: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential. Is is the same as Ampere or Biot Savart? Nope. | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 20:22 | comment | added | Weezy | If you take divergence of $\nabla\times B$ on RHS you get $\nabla \cdot \mu J$ which is 0 on LHS since divergence of curl is always zero yet on the RHS, since J is time varying, can't be zero hence. @honeste_vivere | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 19:06 | comment | added | honeste_vivere | @Weezy - Ampere's law (as are all of Maxwell's equations) is perfectly valid for time-varying fields. I am not sure to what you are referring. | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 16:15 | answer | added | octonion | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:59 | history | edited | Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 408 characters in body
|
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:50 | comment | added | Weezy | Biot Savart law gives you the value of B at any location. When current changes with time so does the magnetic field and B becomes time dependent. | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:49 | history | edited | Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:48 | comment | added | Newton | What about Biot Savart Law? | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:47 | comment | added | Weezy | Ampere's law can't be used for time varying fields because the continuity equation contradicts it. We see $\nabla \cdot J= \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \neq 0 $ | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:37 | comment | added | Newton | I do not agree that this is a duplicate. I am merely questioning the validity of the equation, not asking to solve for the answer. | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:36 | history | edited | Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 27, 2016 at 15:32 | history | asked | Newton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |