Torque on a charged ring I have been studying electromagnetic induction. As I understand, a magnetic field will exert a force on a moving charge. What I would like to know is whether a changing magnetic field will exert a force on a stationary charge? 
For example, consider a charged ring that is placed in a magnetic field. I know that if a current was flowing through this ring, the torque exerted by a magnetic field would be given by $I(\hat{A} \times \hat B)$. Where I is the current flowing in the circuit, $A$ is the area of the coil and $B$ is the magnetic field. 
As I understand, a current is just a flow of charge, or in other words, changing charge. Thus, a changing magnetic field should exert a torque on a stationary charge. Is this right? 
 A: 
What I would like to know is whether a changing magnetic field will
  exert a force on a stationary charge?

Yes, changing the magnetic field will exert a force on a stationary charge. The reason lies in Maxwell's Equations. Following is the 3rd Maxwell Equation, which talks about how time-varying magnetic field produces Non-Conservative Electric Field. 

Now, since the time-varying magnetic field induced electric field and since electric fields exert a force on stationary charged particles, so it is confirmed that time-varying magnetic fields will exert a force on stationary charged particles. 
A: Yes, it is right :)
A changing magnetic field is equivalent to an electrical field. That's what Maxwells equations say.
So a static charge will feel a force, and a collection of charges might feel a torque.

But actually, as pointed out by Feynman (this some decades old, but I have not heard, that it's deprecated), there are two conceptually different mechanisms, the connection of which we do not understand yet - it seems a coincidence.
I mean, the force $F_L$ of a magnetic field on a moving charge, and the force from a changing magnetic field on a static charge. Both lead to the rule, that the emf is equal to the derivative of the magnetic flux. But it seems, there are two distinct reasons for this rule, not obviously derivable one from the other. 
