Timeline for Electromagnetic field energy "paradox"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2017 at 6:05 | history | bounty ended | PPenguin | ||
| Oct 13, 2017 at 16:26 | comment | added | mike stone | @JJMalone: A search shows that the AmJ Phys paper is freely (but possibly not quite legally) available on "Research Gate" -- if you register. I hate the idea of paywalled research stuff, especialy when the work was publicly funded --- but I suppose the $$ has to come from somewhere. Many local libraries have access to Jstor though. | |
| Oct 13, 2017 at 16:21 | comment | added | mike stone | @JJMalone Unfortunately the AmJPhys paper is quite long, and its arguments too intricate to include in a short note. If you treat the dipoles as current loops with constant current maintained by a battery, then inverting one dipole loop induces EMF in both loops and their batteries need to do work keep their currents constant. You can't use superconductors because the current would change. For permanant magnets it's more involved because you need to consider the energetics of electrons, and the paper refers to the Dirac equation for this. | |
| Oct 13, 2017 at 16:12 | history | edited | mike stone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 34 characters in body
|
| Oct 13, 2017 at 16:11 | comment | added | JJMalone | The sources are finite here, so the integrals converge. I do not see that paper on arxiv. Can you expand upon your second to last paragraph? I've become quite curious about this question and it sounds like this really would answer it, but I don't have access to that paper. | |
| Oct 13, 2017 at 16:10 | history | edited | mike stone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 199 characters in body
|
| Oct 13, 2017 at 15:47 | history | answered | mike stone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |