View source for Talk:A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Mid|pub=yes}}
}}

==Web links==
Here are web links that give the complete paper in question,

*http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_1.pdf
*http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_2.pdf
*http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_3.pdf
*http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_4.pdf
*http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_5.pdf
*http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/Maxwell_1864_6.pdf

These should be helpful for the purposes of discussing the paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field', by James Clerk-Maxwell 1864

== math translation ==

''Correct errors and insert conversions, thanks; make a note below equation if this is done''. [[User:Reddi|JDR]] 05:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC) [PS., math hates me]

*<math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mu_0 \mathbf{J}_{tot}</math>

The [[curl]] of the "[[Magnetic field strength|magnetic intensity]]" equals the [[permeability]] of ''total [[current]]'' (including [[displacement current]]). 

*<math>\mathbf{J}_{tot} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t}</math>

The ''total current'' (including displacement current) equals the [[Current density|electric current density]] plus the [[partial derivative]] of the "[[electric displacement]]" over the ''partial derivative'' of [[time]].

*<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>

The ''[[divergence]]'' of the [[electric displacement field]] is equal to the  [[electric charge|electric charge density]].

*<math>\mu \mathbf{H} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A}</math>

the permeability of the [[magnetic field]] equals the [[curl]] of the [[Vector potential|electromagnetic momentum]]. 

I have corrected the symbol 'E' (electric field) into 'f' (force per unit charge). That this should be so is clear from Maxwell's paper where he uses the vector in question in the expression for emf in the place of 'force per unit charge'.[[Special:Contributions/131.180.35.186|131.180.35.186]] ([[User talk:131.180.35.186|talk]]) 07:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

*<math>\mathbf{f} = \mu \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{H} - \frac{\partial\mathbf{A}}{\partial t}-\nabla \phi </math>

*<math>\mathbf{f} = \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbf{D}</math>

*<math>\mathbf{f} = \frac{1}{\sigma} \mathbf{J}</math>

*<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J} = -\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}</math>

----
;notes
* put in some vector operator names. [[User:Reddi|JDR]] 04:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

== Asking for a translation ==

:Reddi, since you don't understand math, please don't propose "translations".  Your translations are nonsensical.  (Also, discussions of the consequences and interpretations of these equations can be found already in [[Maxwell's equations]] and elsewhere.)  [[User:Stevenj|&mdash;Steven G. Johnson]] 18:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

:: My mathematical skills are not great ... but that is exactly why I have asked for a translation. (BTW, I do understand some math, but I am not a mathematician.)
:: I think one great mathemetician once said, "''equations that can be translated into english are a good ones, Those that cannot be, are not'' ... Clifford mabey or someone else ... 
:: Thanks for the direction to the article, though. [[User:Reddi|JDR]] (PS., I'm not asking for a interpertation or consequences, I'm asking for the reading ot the equation. Such as, 1+1=2; [[one]] [[plus]] one equals [[two]])

The link to the online version of the document is only available to subscribers.

== no div B equation? ==
The list doesn't include div B = 0. Is that an error, or did Maxwell actually not include it in his paper?--[[User:75.83.140.254|75.83.140.254]] 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell didn't include the div B = 0 equation in his list of eight in his 1864 paper. Neither did he include Faradays's law of electromagnetic induction. These two equations did however both appear in Maxwell's 1861 paper, and Heaviside included them in his four modified Maxwell's equations in 1884. It is also a point of interest that the Lorentz force was one of the original eight Maxwell's equations. It first appeared as equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper, long before Lorentz produced it. ([[User:222.126.43.98|222.126.43.98]] 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

:It's not an error.  Maxwell didn't need to include it, because it is implied by the <math>\mathbf{B} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A}</math> equation.  (The divergence of a curl is zero.) [[User:Stevenj|—Steven G. Johnson]] 21:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== Error in article? ==

Equation (G), Gauss's Law should probably have del . D = rho, not del . D = - rho. Right? As in [[Gauss's_law]]. Common sense as well, because electric field radiates out from a positive charge.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.250.38.191|128.250.38.191]] ([[User talk:128.250.38.191|talk]]) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Fixed. — [[User:Gavin R Putland|Gavin R Putland]] ([[User talk:Gavin R Putland|talk]]) 11:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

==Improve "translation"==

There was a request to improve the translation above from 6 years ago and a rather arrogant reply. In reviewing the mathematical formula I notice a number of deficiencies in the definitions e.g. Upside-down triangle [[Nabla_symbol]] is not defined, neither is the epsilon, and there are a couple of other deficiencies. I notice that the previous requester did not specify the deficiencies in the symbolic key/legend. So now these are specified and please correct them. I noticed from the sources of the mathematical papers that the equations are different. It is up to the person who substitute the symbolism to define the symbols that he is using completely (less the widely known symbols like +, -, /, . . . .  . --[[User:Pdeitiker|PB666]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Pdeitiker#References|<sup>yap</sup>]] 15:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks  [[User:Hasratpreet Brar|Hasratpreet Brar]] ([[User talk:Hasratpreet Brar|talk]]) 06:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

==Publishing Details==

The Royal Society has records of the timeline between the paper being read on 8 December 1664 and its publication in 1865 in its register of papers, including original correspondence. Perhaps notable is that it was peer-reviewed by William Thomson, later Lord Kelvin, and George Gabriel Stokes. It was approved for publication, according with the Society's statutes on such matters, by the committee of papers on 15 June 1865, and sent to the printer the day after. While ''Philosophical Transactions'' was only published annually in 1865 (in time for the Society's anniversary day, so some time in later November), offprints, which were given to the author for personal use and usually distributed by them to their peers, would have appeared shortly after this date. 16 June 1865 would seem to be the date from which the paper would be widely distributed. I'm happy to add this info if others think it is relevant. ([[User:Sjanusz|Sjanusz]]&#124;[[User talk:Sjanusz|talk]])([[User:Sjanusz|COI]]) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=787251391 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110194643/http://www.d3.dion.ne.jp/~kiyohisa/tieca/251.htm to http://www.d3.dion.ne.jp/~kiyohisa/tieca/251.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

== Can we have more about Maxwell's actual paper? ==

Why is there a long section called "Heaviside's equations" in this article, which is supposed to be about Maxwell's 1864 paper?  Maybe the idea is that Heaviside "vectorized" Maxwell's equations, and that equations (A)-(G) are modern versions of Maxwell's original 20 equations, some being vectorized.  But calling them "Heaviside's equations" is confusing to people who want to find Maxwell's equations, especially since the article seems to say Heaviside ''did not'' write these equations (A)-(G):

: Heaviside's versions of Maxwell's equations are distinct by virtue of the fact that they are written in modern vector notation. They actually only contain one of the original eight—equation "G" (Gauss's Law). Another of Heaviside's four equations is an amalgamation of Maxwell's law of total currents (equation "A") with Ampère's circuital law (equation "C"). 

All in all, the way the article is written makes it difficult to sort out what are Maxwell's equations and what is Heaviside's later work.  I think this article should clarify Maxwell's paper "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" and other articles should explain the history of modern work on electromagnetism by Heaviside and others.  [[User:John Baez|John Baez]] ([[User talk:John Baez|talk]]) 08:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

== The explanation for Gauss's laws sign convention confuses me. ==

The explanation given in this article as to why Gauss's law (G) is ρ + ∇⋅D = 0 and not ∇⋅D = ρ in Maxwell's paper confuses me. If it were true that Maxwell had originally given his components of D (which are, in his notation: f, g and h) as actually components of -D, then wouldn't that make his original derivation of the displacement current incorrect since he writes equations (A) as p'= p + df/dt, q'= q + dg/dt, and r'= r + dh/dt, which in modern notation is Jₜₒₜ = J + ∂D/∂t? If f,g and h are actually components of -D, then isn't Maxwell's original formulation of (A) in modern notation: Jₜₒₜ = J - ∂D/∂t, and thus incorrect? Since it is touted that Maxwell's displacement current was one of the most revolutionary parts of his work, I doubt anybody would have missed that error for 159 years if the sign in front was wrong (Also it is necessary to derive the EM wave equations correctly, which Maxwell did do). I'm more inclined to this <ref name="w947">{{cite journal | last=IN. | first=John | title=The Evolution of Maxwell's Equations from 1862 to the Present Day | journal=IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine | date=2013 | url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Evolution-of-Maxwell's-Equations-from-1862-to-IN./a35270208be5abb4f278da7b71c9caef596a399c | access-date=2025-01-25 | page=}}</ref> paper's explanation. On page 66, the author states that there was essentially an inconsistency in Maxwell's original treatment of charge, thus leading to a wrong sign in front of his charge variable ρ (e in Maxwell's formulation). If anybody can correct me on this or elaborate, it would be much appreciated. [[User:Bibbloti|Bibbloti]] ([[User talk:Bibbloti|talk]]) 16:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:Good point (although the "components of -D" explanation was originally offered by me!). Unfortunately I'm going to be taken out of action for a few days. I tried to add a "dubious" tag in the meantime, but it failed to link to the right section of the talk page, and then got reverted. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Gavin R Putland|Gavin R Putland]] ([[User talk:Gavin R Putland|talk]]) 09:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC).
::If it is okay by you, I would like to edit your explanation to the "Charge Inconsistency" one I've presented. The paper I have referenced will be the main citation used. I'm asking for the permission of you, mainly because I'm not as mathematically literate as you are, so I'm more prone to errors. My explanation would go as follows:
::"Maxwell's equation [[#G|(G)]] in the 1864 paper states <math>\rho + \nabla \cdot\mathbf{D} = 0</math> instead of the proper equation that would be read <math>-{\rho} + \nabla \cdot\mathbf{D} = 0</math>.  This is due to an inconsistency in Maxwell's original treatment of charge, possibly arising from his mechanical analogy for electromagnetism, as he may have treated the positive mass of mechanical force as an allegory for the negative charge units used for an electromagnetic force, but he did not flip the sign.<ref name="w947">{{cite journal | last=IN. | first=John | title=The Evolution of Maxwell's Equations from 1862 to the Present Day | journal=IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine | date=2013 | url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Evolution-of-Maxwell's-Equations-from-1862-to-IN./a35270208be5abb4f278da7b71c9caef596a399c | access-date=2025-01-25 | page=}}</ref> What Maxwell denoted as <math>e</math> (in modern notation, <math>\rho</math>) in his paper would be expressed as units of negative charge. Maxwell corrected this mistake in his later work, [[A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism]].<ref>Maxwell, James Clerk (1873). ''A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism''. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vol.{{tsp}}{{serif|II}}, [https://archive.org/stream/electricandmag02maxwrich#page/n263/mode/2up p.{{px2}}233], eq.{{px2}}({{serif|J}}).</ref>"
::This explanation seems to line up with <ref name="w947" /> when its stated:
::Page 64 (On Figure 2 which is about "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"): "Maxwell called the vector potential "electromagnetic momentum" because e(dA/dt) represents a force acting on e units of negative charge, and this bears a similarity to the familiar mechanical force, m(dp/dt) , where p is mechanical momentum and m is mass. Could it have been this analogy that prompted the problem with the signs of e in Equations (F) and (C)?"
::Page 66: "Figure 2 shows Maxwell's symbols and how he enumerated and described his equations, while Figure 3 shows how all 20 of his equations actually appeared. Note that there was an inconsistency in his treatment of charge, so that the sign of ρ in equation (G) is wrong."
::I believe this would be the correct interpretation. Please let me know if there is any issues with it in your own free time. Many thanks. [[User:Bibbloti|Bibbloti]] ([[User talk:Bibbloti|talk]]) 12:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think the situation calls for a temporary fix pending a more thorough overhaul. Out of an abundance of caution (born of recent embarrassment), I&nbsp;suggest that the offending paragraph be replaced by the following: <blockquote>Maxwell's equation&nbsp;[[#G|(G)]], as printed in the 1865 paper, requires his {{mvar|e}}&#8202; to mean ''minus'' the charge density (if his {{mvar|f, g, h}}&#8202; are the components of{{math| '''D'''}}), whereas his equation&nbsp;[[#H|(H)]] requires his {{mvar|e}}&#8202; to mean ''plus'' the charge density (if his {{mvar|p, q, r}}&#8202; are the components of{{math| '''J'''}}). John&nbsp;W.&nbsp;Arthur<ref name="arthur947">Arthur, J.W., "The evolution of Maxwell's equations from 1862 to the present day", ''IEEE Antennas &amp; Propagation Magazine'', vol.&#8239;55, no.&#8239;3 (June&nbsp;2013), incorporating "Correction" in vol.&#8239;55, no.&#8239;4 (Aug.&#8239;2013), republished with permission at [https://johnwarthur.com/articles-by-john-w-arthur/evolution-of-maxwells-equations/ johnwarthur.com/articles-by-john-w-arthur/evolution-of-maxwells-equations] (cited page numbers are from this link).</ref>{{rp|7,8}} concludes that the sign of {{mvar|e}}&#8202; in&nbsp;(G) is wrong, and observes{{r|arthur947|p=8}} that this sign is corrected in Maxwell's subsequent ''Treatise''.<ref>Maxwell, James Clerk (1873). ''A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism''. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vol.&#8239;{{serif|II}}, [https://archive.org/stream/electricandmag02maxwrich#page/n263/mode/2up p.&#8239;233], eq.&#8239;({{serif|J}}).</ref> Arthur speculates that the sign confusion may have arisen from the analogy between momentum and the magnetic vector potential (Maxwell's "electromagnetic momentum"), in which positive mass corresponds to ''negative'' charge{{r|arthur947|p=4}} (and Arthur's "(F) and (C)" is apparently a misprint for "(F) and (G)").&nbsp; Arthur{{r|arthur947|p=3}} also lists some corresponding equations from Maxwell's earlier paper of 1861-2,{{r|OPLF}} and notes that the signs do not always match the later ones. The earlier signs are correct if {{mvar|F, G, H}}&#8202; are the components of{{math| &minus;'''A'''}} while {{mvar|f, g, h}}&#8202; are the components of{{math| &minus;'''D'''}}.</blockquote>
:The above (I hope) incorporates what you have said, in more equivocal language. Notice that the author of the paper you found is Arthur, not "IN". I&nbsp;have cited page numbers from the author's corrected version because it is open-access (with proper permission). The broken link to the 1861-2 paper should repair itself when the paragraph is pasted in place.

:&mdash; [[User:Gavin R Putland|Gavin R Putland]] ([[User talk:Gavin R Putland|talk]]) 07:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC).

::Yes I believe something like what you have said is mostly correct, though it may certainly need changing in the future. I don't exactly know if when Arthur used "(C)" that it was actually a misprint of "(G)" however. When I quoted that first paragraph, I meant it as to illustrate Maxwell had messed up the sign of "e" and so I don't know how (F) or (C) had anything to do with it, as both equations don't seem to contain the term "e". Likewise I have no clue if the sign of "e" would change anything in (F) or (C). But regardless I do think what you have stated is correct. Thanks. [[User:Bibbloti|Bibbloti]] ([[User talk:Bibbloti|talk]]) 13:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}