Experimental evidence of Gauss's law in electrodynamics?

AI Thread Summary
Gauss's law can be derived from Coulomb's law in electrostatics, but its validity in non-static cases requires experimental evidence since Coulomb's law does not apply. Current experiments suggest that Gauss's law has stronger empirical support than Coulomb's law, particularly in testing the exponent 2 in Coulomb's law, which relates to photon mass limits. A recent seminar raised questions about the validity of divE=0 in pure void, suggesting that reference frames might affect this principle, though the logic remains unclear. The discussion highlights the need for experiments conducted in non-lab frames to further investigate these concepts. Overall, the relationship between Gauss's law, Coulomb's law, and experimental evidence continues to be a significant topic in electrodynamics.
kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
In electrostatic case, Gauss's law can be derived from Columb's law, so we can regard experimental evidence for Columb's law as evidence of Gauss's law. But what about non-static case? In this case we know columb's law is no longer valid, so we need experimental evidence to justify Gauss's law, am I correct? If so, could you guys show me some of such experiments?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, the experimental evidence is stronger for Gauss than for Coulomb.
Since both depend on the exponent 2 in Coulomb's law, testing Gauss is used as a test for that exponent. Today, most tests are interpreted as a limit on the mass of the photon, since zero mass leads to the 1/r^2. you could go to <http://pdg.lbl.gov/> and go to the photon to see recent experimental tests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emm, true.
Actually yesterday an Italian guy came to our school and gave a seminar, discussed what can we get for EM wave if divE=0 is not necessarily true in pure void (He's a mathematician not physicist). I just didn't get the point, because i think divE=0 is well examined by experiments, and he mentioned it might not be true because we couldn't choose a reference frame relatively at rest to the EM wave(i might not hear him very clearly, but definitely something involving reference frame), but I couldn't see the logic...Do you guys understand?
Anyway that reminds me to check if there's any experiment done in a non-lab frame (relatively moving w.r.t earth)
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top