When the cylinder is embedded, a secondary layer of bound densities is formed around it which oppose those of the P or M whose influence would otherwise be prevalent. That is why the method will measure H or D rather than E or B
Too see what I mean you can try a thought experiment using my...
And besides, trying to discuss vector H on the quantum level doesn't even make any sense. H is defined as:
H = B/μ° - M
And M is by definition a macroscopic value. It is the magnetic dipole moment per unit volume. Undefined on the quantum level, and hence so too is H.
The boundary condition which states that the discontinuity in the tangential component of the H at the border between two mediums is equal to the free surface current density J follows directly from the relation
∇ x H = Jfree + ∂D/∂t
But inside of a perfect conductor, there is no "polarization/magnetization" by definition. All charges/currents are "free charges/currents" and are at the surface.
Where does choice come in?
...And what would you "shuffle" to change the conclusion you would be unavoidably directed to about...
At the interface between two mediums, the free surface current J is equal to the difference between the tangential components of H, on either side of the...
The only problem with saying H is just a mathematical construct and not a real field is that H can actually be directly measured by experiment at a particular point in space, and all without needing to know either B or M or even J locally. In this respect it is just as fundamental as E or B...
But if in the local rest frame of each wire element there is a magnetic field B-prime, then presumably a compass situated one of the elements and riding along with it would be accordingly deflected.
With no B-field in the lab frame, what is there in the body of electromagnetic law to account...
Not an imaginary artifact. We have to be able to determine, yes or no, if compasses situated along the perimeter of the shrinking loop in the constant E field would deflect. Either they would or they wouldn't.
The amount of E passing through a surface enclosed by the shrinking loop is lessening even though E itself is time-constant inside of it. Would that be like a displacement current through it?
After all, in a Faraday law analogy, if it were a loop perpendicular to a B field, there would be 2...
Imagine an E field coming out of your screen that is constant everywhere in space and time (∂E/∂t=0). And in your reference frame, let's say that this the only field there is -- there is no B.
Say there is a loop in the plane of your screen, and so the plane of this loop is perpendicular to...
Thank you very much for your reply!
Getting back to my shrinking loop of wire in an area of time-constant B field, would the following analysis be correct, in light of what you've said? (Let us assume either no induced current, or negligible induced current in my shrinking loop, so it...
If I may make a quick correction, I should have presented the integral form as
and not as
like I did, because the surface integral on the right is NOT around a closed surface. (sorry).
I first learned Maxwell's equations in their integral form before I was introduced to the differential form, i.e. w/curl & divergence.
As I understand, in order to derive the curl form from the integral form, apply Stokes Theorem to the integral form of