Changing magnetic field and a point charge, seems unresolvable

GarageDweller

By defining B=Curl(A) and E=-(Del(V)+dA/dt) we automatically satisfy Faradays law and gauss' law of magnetism.
V (or Phi, the scalar potential) and A are not more fundamental, they are not directly observable and do not have a one to one relation with their electromagnetic fields.
I do not see what is so unresolvable here.

Edit:After re-reading the original post I am confused what you are asking, first you say you are confused about the potential formulation of EM, and then you go on to say something about the "ambiguity of E field..", without finishing that sentence you continue on to say that the potential formulation is more fundamental then the E and B field one. Could you restate your question please?

DaleSpam

It isn't any different. When you work with potentials instead of fields then Faraday's law is an identity (as is Gauss' law for magnetism). I.e. you can write down fields E and B such that Faraday's law is violated, but you cannot write down potentials V and A such that Faraday's law is violated.

Q-reeus

Sorry universal_101 about delayed reply, but thanks for the compliments.
None off hand, but especially with toroidal transformers no other explanation really fits the behavior. If I have read between the lines right here, your chief interest is in resolving the Feynman disk paradox referred to in #1. There, a mechanical imbalance of angular momentum arises when the central superconducting coil 'thaws' and a decaying dI/dt -> -dA/dt solenoidal E field acting on the peripheral charges, yet with no commensurate back-reaction on the coil. The usual explanation (Feynman doesn't provide it there) posits a compensating physically real angular momentum stored in the initial distribution of crossed static E and B fields mostly exterior to the physical structure. A variant with analysis is at http://au.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0...n_cylinder.pdf
Am I right in thinking your main concern is with the mechanical imbalance, as the notion that the superposition of purely static and independently generated fields creates real field momentum seems fishy? Then you are far from alone but the book-keeping works out in such scenarios. I have looked at certain situations involving precessional motions where the book-keeping balance sure seems hard to find, but won't elaborate here.

universal_101

Thanks Dalespam, for the insights, on the two ways to deal with electrodynamics. But it seems the original Faraday's law(changing magnetic fields produces currents) as modified for Maxwell's equations by Maxwell(changing magnetic fields produces electric field) is not a logically consistent modification, abiding with the definition of electric field.

However, the assumption that changing magnetic fields produces electric field again encounters another problem(even after resolving the ambiguity issue), when we try to conserve the momentum of the system, as is nicely pointed out by Q-reeus in the above post.

universal_101

Q-reeus you are absolutely right in recognizing my concern, but your explanation raises serious questions which I previously did not have in my mind.

First of all about the part highlighted in bold in your response, how is it possible that the coil does not get back reaction and the disc starts moving ? It would be a simple violation of Newton's third law ! Even the book-keeping requirement of the existence of a real angular momentum should produce the commensurate back-reaction on the coil ! Since one cannot produce angular momentum without the Force that produces it at the first place!

DaleSpam

Why not? What specific logical inconsistency arises from the equations when modified in that way? I.e. This is a mathematical claim, can you show it mathematically?

Momentum is conserved, provided you account for the momentum of the fields as well. The Lagrangian is invariant under both translations and rotations, so both linear and angular momentum are conserved by the fields.

universal_101

To me mathematics works as one defines it, but here is an insight on the differences of the electric fields from the two laws, the electric field according to Gauss theorem(definition of point charge( [itex]∇.\vec{E_G}=ρ/\epsilon_0[/itex])) definitely has a source of electric field, but the electric field due to Maxwell's equation(Faraday's law) does not have divergence or a point source([itex]∇×\vec{E_M}=-∂\vec{B}/∂t[/itex] ). And this difference remains in SR too, that is one cannot transform one type of field to other without having logical inconsistencies.

That is, one should not replace [itex]\vec{E_M}[/itex] with [itex]\vec{E_G}[/itex] or vice-versa.

I think, I don't yet understand the physics behind the momentum of fields, but you should elaborate that part too, since Faraday's law and field momentum seems to be related.

DaleSpam

There are not different types of E fields here, there is only one kind of E field. Perhaps you do not realize that [itex]\nabla \cdot E [/itex] is not the same as [itex]E[/itex] and similarly with [itex]\nabla \times E [/itex]. They are independent conditions that can both be satisfied by one [itex]E[/itex] field.

Here are my favorite pages on the momentum of EM fields. The first shows how the momentum of the fields is defined, and the second shows that the momentum is conserved.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node90.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node91.html

Q-reeus

It's a violation of Newton's third law as originally formulated, which treats only the net effect on material bodies, but when generalized to include the momentum of fields it does seem to always hold - that much I agree with in #23.
Electromagnetic induction is fundamentally asymmetrical in the sense that accelerated motion is not relative. Take some inertial frame with a stationary charge q near a straight, very long line lq of uniform charge density. Suppose q is restrained from radial motion toward or away from lq by a neutral railing running parallel to lq. Accelerate lq along it's length, and we have a ramp current dI/dt generating some value of dA/dt = -E at q. Hence a force F = -qE acts on q, but there is no such force -F acting back on lq. That's evident from the symmetry of q's field, and that from the Lorentz force law, the electric force component on charges in lq is independent of velocity.

Similarly, if instead we have lq stationary and accelerate q, for the same reason as before, it's evident why the asymmetry exists in the lab frame - entirely radial field from lq, so no longitudinal force component on q in lab frame or q's frame. There is though a back-reaction force on lq owing to q's acceleration. In the proper, accelerated frame of q, it sees lq accelerating and creating a time changing A, but feels no net longitudinal field despite a non-zero E = -dA/dt! I vaguely recall a derivation by W.Rosser that shows why. It involves retardation effects that are not the same as when lq does the accelerating, and results in an asymmetric distribution of charge along lq seen in q's frame. (Recall that as q gathers speed, it sees a time changing density of charge along lq according to the usual gamma factor.) The resulting E = -∇phi exactly counteracts the -dA/dt seen there.

As far as the references in #25 go, I note the first deals exclusively with radiation and is thus irrelevant to the Feynman disc case, while the second begins it's derivation by referencing to expressions explicitly dealing again with radiation, not crossed static and independently generated fields. One real problem for crossed static fields, especially when there is axial symmetry involved, is the entire lack of any net momentum flux through some bounding closed surface, either in the steady-state, or during field setup (excluding radiation). We more or less have to take it on faith that this mysterious circulating E_static x B_static field momentum provides a physically real balance. That despite neither field on it's own carrying a whit of momentum of any kind (in the frame of interest). And despite the seeming absurdity of supposing superposition of the two perfectly linear (and thus lacking any room for interaction terms) fields radically alters things and there is interaction after all. Still, without such faith we would be obliged to abandon conservation of angular momentum. I have something in mind that should dispel the need for faith, but not for now.

universal_101

First of all, thanks again for the very detailed, honest and fair response. I was waiting for it !
Following are my thoughts on the angular momentum of crossed static E and Bfields.
Where as my argument is, even after the inclusion of the momentum of the static fields, the newton's law would be violated, and therefore the conservation of angular momentum still be violated ! Just hear me out,

Since there was NO angular momentum when the current in the coil was constant(ignoring the hidden momentum), but when the current started decreasing it produced static electric fields and magnetic fields, now, in order to have the angular momentum in these static fields, the angular momentum must come from somewhere, (as we still believe in the conservation of angular momentum! ) and there is only one possible cause of it the the current carrying coil itself. This implies either we keep the conservation of angular momentum and conclude that changing magnetic fields do not influence the stationary point charges OR we must give-up the conservation of momentum at-least in this case!

I think one has to make serious changes in classical electrodynamics, so as to atleast, satisfactorily explain the above contradiction.

DaleSpam

The EM Lagrangian is rotationally invariant, so conservation of angular momentum is guaranteed by Noethers theorem. Also, B fields do not influence stationary charges, whether changing or not. However, E fields do, and changing magnetic fields can produce E fields.

Also, do you understand from my previous comments how there are not two different E fields?

Q-reeus

And thanks universal_101 for your appreciation!
I think I understand your point here - even in the absence of the peripheral charges there is field angular momentum owing to the mix of quasistatic B and -dA/dt E fields arising solely in response to the coil's dying current. Not actually so here. Note the E field lines are circularly symmetric about the coil axis, while the lines of B, evaluated through any plane lying in and including the coil axis, lie entirely in such planes. So the nominal Poynting vector field for such crossed E & B fields always itself lies in such a plane, and therefore has no azimuthal component as required to account for angular momentum. The coil itself initially does carry mechanical angular momentum owing to the circulating current. That angular momentum was earlier injected during whatever means were used to set up the supercurrent in the first place. During the current decay process, cooper-pairs (which comprise the supercurrent) breakup and thence behave as normally conducting electrons which subsequently resistively interact with the lattice structure and this transfers momentum to the lattice. So in effect the 'invisible' angular momentum in the current finishes up as 'visible' momentum in the lattice - i.e. there is a minute but detectable rotation induced in the coil. But no net change in overall angular momentum is involved. Note also that the azimuthal -dA/dt E field is not inducing any overall mechanical momentum as the coil is electrically neutral.
I agree there is a real issue here that imo has been swept under the rug so to speak. Just to highlight the intrinsically different character of demonstrably real radiative momentum to this notional static field momentum, consider something as closely analogous to circulating S_stat = 1/μ₀E_stat × B_stat as can be. A traveling-wave (aka 'ring') resonator. When energized to a steady-state condition, there is a circulating flow of essentially reactive power density S_rad = 1/μ₀E×B and momentum density S_rad/c in what is basically a section of waveguide closed back on itself. Place a tiny strip of power absorbing or reflecting material in the path of this power and momentum flow, and it will variously heat up and move in the direction of power flow, in so doing causing a concomitant loss and/or reflection of power and momentum in the radiative stream. Try the same thing with the notional power and momentum 'flow' in the crossed static fields case, and, no real surprise, nothing whatsoever is detected. This mysterious momentum and power flow has the annoying knack of evading all attempts at physical detection! Does make some folks wonder.

universal_101

I think, I can believe some experiments more easily than a disputed claim of angular momentum presence due to changing magnetic fields.

I think it is this E field that is produced by the changing magnetic field, which contains this physical real momentum, so at-least in this case it is different than the E field produced by a charge ! What do you think?

DaleSpam

The momentum density of the field is ExB, not just E. Again, there is only one E field, not two separate kinds.

universal_101

Your point is valid, that there is NO azimuthal component of the angular momentum as required for peripheral charges, therefore there is NO angular momentum for peripheral charges unless they themselves are present. Alright.

But then, how does the presence of peripheral charges changes the scene ? And wouldn't it then mean, that peripheral charges produces angular momentum for themselves in the presence of magnetic fields or changing magnetic fields !!

Whereas on the other hand, I perfectly understand the minute rotation due to stopping of moving electrons while the current decays.

So, we can't detect the angular momentum due to static crossed fields! but the bigger question is why are we searching for one ? Do we have any experiment that suggest the disc in the Paradox should rotate ? After-all even the Feynman disc experiment seems very simple to perform!!

Q-reeus

That will do.
What can be really said is that in such an arrangement as Feynman disk, there is a net production of mechanical angular momentum owing to the interaction between decaying coil current and the peripheral charges. Mediated by the azimuthal E field that owes it's origin to that decaying coil current, and is associated with a time-changing B field, the association between E and B being given by Faraday's law curl E = -dB/dt. With E itself being given here by -dA/dt, as was part of discussions back around #10-#14.
Glad that one is bedded down.
Personally I have no doubt it will rotate, but the forces induced will be very weak. As said in an earlier post, transformer action really requires that charges in the secondary windings are being pushed around by those -dA/dt E fields.
While the physical scenario is a simple one, the implications continue to create heated debate in various circles, and understandably so. A majority simply accept the primacy of the conservation law involved here - angular momentum, and are happy to accept this demands physically real momentum in those static crossed fields. Others, including myself, are not so readily satisfied.
[There are various alternate arrangements - one example given earlier in a link. Some involve apparent creation of linear momentum, but in such cases there is inevitably another player in the game - so-called hidden momentum that counteracts any 'overt' mechanical momentum. Static field momentum here rarely if ever enters the equation as a 'necessary balance'.]

universal_101

Whereas I don't think that something like that can be done. I have my own issues

I think all this has to do with a fundamental misconception in classical electrodynamics, anyway, I should thank you for the very detailed and interesting discussion.