Talk:Maxwell's equations
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maxwell's equations Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
| Template:Search box |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Banner holder User:MiszaBot/config
Jefimenko
Why the discussion of Jefimenko in the Solutions section? Lienard-Wiechert were over 60 years earlier, and Jefimenko really does not add to their work as far as I can see. Having the LW work here would be appropriate, instead of the paragraph there now.
Modified Ampere law
Regarding this, I have replaced the seldomly used "Ampere's modified law" that was recently put in place of the somewhat awkwardly sounding "modified Ampere's law" with the more commonly used "Ampere-Maxwell law":
- DVdm (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Google Search Scholar Books Web "Ampere-Maxwell law" 1,480 (96.2%) 1,330 (81.8%) 12,700 (77.1%) "modified Ampere's law" 56 (3.6%) 293 (18.0%) 3,670 (22.3%) "Ampere's modified law" 3 (0.2%) 3 (0.2%) 102 (0.6%)
Revert
@User:Constant314 please could you explain in more detail why you reverted the edit? Because the user has queried it on my talk page, and I am directing him here to discuss — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just plain wrong, which is sufficient reason to revert.
- No WP:RS cited.
- It was WP:OR or maybe WP:SYN.
- The diagram in question appears as is in many reliable sources.
- It was a comment in an article that should have been on the talk page. If that comment had been made on the talk page, I would not have reverted it. The editor is welcome to open a discussion and make a case here on the talk page or contact me on my talk page.
- Constant314 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here are a few relaible sources for the diagram as is:
- Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, third edition, 1999, fig 9.10 on page 379.
- Harrington, Introduction to Electromagnetic Engineering, Dover, 2003, fig. 10-4, page 262.
- Prucell, Electricity and Magnetism, 2011, fig 9.7, page 333.
- Halliday, Resnick & Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, 2003 fig. 34-5, page 805
- Constant314 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed response — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here are a few relaible sources for the diagram as is:
Lorentz force and Maxwell's equations.
The Lorentz force is a prediction of Maxwell's equation. Faraday's equation is: ∇×E = - dB/dt = -∂B/dt - ∇(v·B). dB/dt = ∂B/∂t + ∇(v·B). It is for the two frames of reference. "∂B/dt" is when a magnetic field is changing around an electrical charge. "∇(v·B)" is the perspective of a moving electrical charge. "∇×E = - ∇(v·B)" is the Lorentz force part of Faraday's Equations. In Ampère's law the equivalent to "∇(v·E)" would be "J/ε_0". J = ε_0*∇(v·E). Sorry for the shitty format, I suck at this. 2A02:AA1:105B:B81C:9404:E90D:541C:3A46 (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Vectors in Maxwell equations
Curl and divergence operators work on vectors (nabla), i might be wrong but why aren't in maxwell equations E, B etc. written as vectors, cause on the other side there is even parcial derivation too 86.33.92.44 (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- E and B are vectors in the article; that is why they are bold. I do not understand what you are trying to say about partial derivatives. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- @86.., See Maxwell's equations#Key to the notation. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)