-1
$\begingroup$

Let's consider a square loop of wire of edge length $1$ inside a variable magnetic field such that $ \dfrac{dB}{dt} = k $. Faraday's Law tells that $$ \mathcal E = -\frac{d(BA)}{dt} = -A\frac{dB}{dt} = -kA $$ then the area of the square is $1$ and everything's fine.

The problem is that one could also decide to calculate $\mathcal E$ as the sum of multiple EMFs between some points belonging to the square. Let me choose 4 points each at a distance $1/5$ from every vertex, as shown in the picture. Then in this case $$ \mathcal E = \Delta V_{AB} + \Delta V_{BC} + \Delta V_{CD} + \Delta V_{DA} = 4 \Delta V_{AB} = -4kA_{triangle} $$

I have applied Faraday's law on the closed loop described by one of the 4 triangles bounded by the black wire and the green dashed line.

$$ A_{triangle} = \frac 1 2 \cdot \frac 4 5 \cdot \frac 1 5 = \frac 2 {25} $$

Now $ 4A_{triangle}\neq A_{square}$ and thus the two approaches lead to different values for $\mathcal E$. How is that possible?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why $\Delta V_{AB}=-kA_{triangle}$?? $\endgroup$ – velut luna May 14 '17 at 11:13
  • $\begingroup$ How do you know that proportionality constant of case of Triangle emf is same as that of square's emf? $\endgroup$ – The Dead Legend May 14 '17 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ The proportionality constant is the time derivative of the magnetic field, and thus does not depend on the loop considered. $\endgroup$ – MarcoV May 14 '17 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ @velutluna it's the general equation $\mathcal E = -kA$ applied in the particular case in which $A=A_{triangle}$ $\endgroup$ – MarcoV May 14 '17 at 11:18
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcoV But it should be the emf along the whole triangle, not just $AB$. $\endgroup$ – velut luna May 14 '17 at 11:19
2
$\begingroup$

Here, you are using implicitely the fact that for any points $P$ and $Q$ and any path $\Gamma$ going from $P$ to $Q$,

$$ \int\limits_\Gamma \mathbf{E}\cdot \textrm{d}\mathbf{l} = C^{te} = \Delta V_{PQ} $$

We could find an even more convincing contradiction: let's consider an arbitrary point $A$ on the wire. Let's call $\Gamma$ the path that travels along the whole loop from $A$ to $A$, then $\mathcal{E}$ is defined by:

$$\mathcal{E} = \int\limits_{\Gamma} \mathbf{E}\cdot \textrm{d}\mathbf{l} = -\frac{\textrm{d}AB}{\textrm{d}t} = -kA \ne 0$$

Now, consider $\Gamma'$ the trivial path going from $A$ to $A$, ie. $\forall t,\,\Gamma'(t) = A$, then according to the first equation,

$$\mathcal{E} = \int\limits_{\Gamma'} \mathbf{E}\cdot\textrm{d}\mathbf{l} = 0$$

since $\Gamma' = A$ (this is an integral over a point). Finally,

$$ 0 \ne 0$$

Well, there's definitely something wrong here... Induction is fondamentally due to the variations of the electromagnetic field: without $\mathbf{B}$ varying, according to Faraday's law, there wouldn't be any electromotive force, so no induction. However, in the previous proof of the non-nullity of zero, we used a result only true in for static fields: the field $\mathbf{E}$ is conservative, or in other words, the first equation is wrong. So, the symbol $\Delta$ doesn't make sense here, and integrating over different parts of the triangles must lead to different results.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your explaination is convincing. But in this example physics.stackexchange.com/a/332999/155486, why is it that making the initial assumption (i.e. E is conservative) leads to the correct result? Is it just a fortunate choice for the loop? $\endgroup$ – MarcoV May 14 '17 at 11:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This answer doesn't make the assumption that E is conservative: indeed, it says that the circulation of E along any closed path equals the derivative of the flux of B through any surface delimited by the path. However, flux depends on the surface, so this doesn't mean that E is conservative. $\endgroup$ – Spirine May 14 '17 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ What allows to calculate the emf between the two open ends of the moving wire if it is not true that $\int_\Gamma \mathbf E\cdot d\mathbf l = \Delta V_{PQ}$? I still can't see the difference bewteen my approach and the one of the link above... $\endgroup$ – MarcoV May 14 '17 at 12:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I apologize, my previous comment was irrelevant: in the post linked, $\mathbf{B}$ is static, so $\mathbf{E}$ is conservative. $\endgroup$ – Spirine May 14 '17 at 12:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.