What's the Difference Between 'Out of Paper' and 'Upwards' in Magnetic Forces?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the terminology used in describing magnetic forces, specifically the terms "out of paper" and "upwards," and their implications in physics. Participants explore the definitions and contexts in which these terms are applied.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the definitions of "out of paper" and "upwards," discussing their geometric implications. There are inquiries about the relationship between these terms and the concepts of perpendicularity and normal vectors. Some participants explore how the direction of magnetic fields and currents affects the classification of forces.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored regarding the terminology. Some participants provide insights into the definitions of normal and perpendicular, while others question the appropriateness of these terms in specific contexts. There is no explicit consensus, but valuable perspectives are being shared.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference external sources to support their arguments about the definitions of normal and perpendicular, indicating a search for clarity in terminology. The discussion reflects a mix of foundational physics concepts and mathematical definitions.

phyphysics
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
In giving directions of magnetic forces, we sometimes use the term "out of paper" or upwards, but what really is the difference between them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
upward lies in the plane of the paper while "out of paper" is perpendicular to it.
 
Perpendicular to the paper?? What do you thinK about normal?
 
If there's just a wire placing horizontally, how can you determine whether the force lies in the plane or out of the plane?
 
That will depend on direction of magnetic field and that of current. Use Fleming's left hend rule.
 
perpendicular and normal are synonim
 
but I think that perpendicular is to a line and normal is to a plane.
 
After a bit of research, I think both terms are good here.

Mathworld says for the definition of 'normal vector':

"The normal vector, often simply called the "normal," to a surface is a vector perpendicular to it."

So it makes sense to talk about a vector perpendicular to a surface (we knew that of course).

'Normal' is just a more sophisticated way of saying the same thing.

And it doesn't seem right to say that 'normal' and 'perpendicular' are synonim, because the term normal, as I understand it, can only be used when talking about a vector. So we can say that two planes are perpendicular to one another, but we cannot say that they are normal to one another.

sources:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalVector.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Perpendicular.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_normal
 
Last edited:
So will it be correct to say that two vectors are normal to each other if angle between them is 90.
 
  • #10
I would say 'no'. 'Normal' is only used to describe perpendicularity of a vector wrt a plane.

Have you seen this used in a textbook before? I think they mostly use the term 'orthogonal', which is a synomim to perpendicular when talking about simple object such as lines, vectors, planes, etc., but actually extend to more abstract mathematical objects as the generalisation of the notion of perpendicularity.


See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81294&highlight=orthogonal
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Thanks for your valuable explanations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K