Unraveling Faraday's Law: Formal Proof & Understanding the Transformation | Wiki

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the formal proof of Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction and the transformation steps involved. The initial step involves applying the chain rule, where one variable is held constant while differentiating another, leading to the derivation of terms related to changing magnetic fields. The proof referenced assumes one of Maxwell's laws to derive the rate of change of magnetic flux, which is then used to formulate the equation for electromotive force (emf). It is noted that the proof can also be approached in reverse, starting with the law for emf to derive Faraday's Law. Clarifying these transformations is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between Maxwell's equations and Faraday's Law.
LiftHeavy13
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm looking for a proof of faraday's law. This is the only page which gives a formal proof of it, but I do not understand the transformation from the first to the second step. It someone could help me out, I would appreciate it. Also, if someone could explain the opposite as well: how do you go from maxwell and faraday's differential equation to the actual equation for emf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction#Proof_of_Faraday.27s_law

sorry, i posted this in the calculus forum as well. was not sure which to put it in. thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first step is the chain rule so one variable is kept constant while another gets differentiated and vice versa and the two are summed together. Since the surface the integral is integrating over can vary with time, the surface is kept constant and the magnetic field is differentiated to get the first term and then the second term is obtained by differentiating the integral where the surface can vary with time but where the the magnetic field inside the integrand is kept constant.

The proof you linked pretty much does that already. It assumes one of the Maxwell's laws and derives an expression for the rate of change of flux. If you wanted to derive the formula for emf you would then proceed to assume Faraday's law for emf and substitute the derived formula for the rate of change of magnetic flux into it to get the formula for emf. The proof you linked does it the over way around so it assumes the law for emf first and substitues it into get Faraday's law.
 
I was using the Smith chart to determine the input impedance of a transmission line that has a reflection from the load. One can do this if one knows the characteristic impedance Zo, the degree of mismatch of the load ZL and the length of the transmission line in wavelengths. However, my question is: Consider the input impedance of a wave which appears back at the source after reflection from the load and has traveled for some fraction of a wavelength. The impedance of this wave as it...
Back
Top