A question about the fundamentality of magnetism

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpatryluk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Magnetism
AI Thread Summary
Moving electric charges create magnetic fields as a result of the electromagnetic interaction, which is a fundamental force. The net charge in a wire remains neutral despite electron flow, and magnetism does not require a positive or negative net charge. The relationship between electron movement and magnetism is influenced by special relativity, which affects how magnetic fields are perceived depending on the observer's reference frame. While photons are the force carriers for electromagnetism, the discussion clarifies the distinction between virtual and real photons in this context. Understanding these principles provides a clearer insight into the nature of magnetism as a fundamental occurrence rather than a simple phenomenon.
mpatryluk
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
I'm sorry if I may be asking an unanswerable question here, but I've looked all through the forums and the internet to find a satisfying answer to why moving electric charges create a magnetic field.

I'm not trying to ask why electrical attraction/repulsion exists, as I take that as a fundamental force. But i am wondering which specific mechanics cause the relative motion of a flow of electrons to create an attractive or repulsive force on objects we deem magnetic.

I guess my main question is:
What is it about the movement aspect that is so special?

When electrons are flowing through a copper wire, the net charge on the wire is still neutral at any given point, isn't it? So does the electron movement somehow create a temporary net charge because of the fact that the individual electrons and their static fields are changing position relative to the magnetic object? Or does magnetism have nothing to do with positive/negative net charge?As a note i thought of after: Photons are the force carriers for electromagnetism, right? So magnetism must be caused by some difference in how the photons affect a target when the electron that emits them is moving?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not trying to ask why electrical attraction/repulsion exists, as I take that as a fundamental force.
The (more) fundamental interaction is the electromagnetic interaction. We do not know why the electromagnetic interaction exists, that is just an experimental result. The magnetic fields of moving charges are a direct result of that. Special relativity is very important in that respect.
Photons are the force carriers for electromagnetism, right?
In quantum field theory, with virtual photons, yes.
So magnetism must be caused by some difference in how the photons affect a target when the electron that emits them is moving?
You are mixing virtual and real photons here.

When electrons are flowing through a copper wire, the net charge on the wire is still neutral at any given point, isn't it?
Right.
So does the electron movement somehow create a temporary net charge because of the fact that the individual electrons and their static fields are changing position relative to the magnetic object?
That is a very good question, and the answer is: it depends. It depends on your reference frame, and special relativity is necessary to see this in detail.
Or does magnetism have nothing to do with positive/negative net charge?
You do not need net charges for magnetic fields.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
mfb said:
The (more) fundamental interaction is the electromagnetic interaction. We do not know why the electromagnetic interaction exists, that is just an experimental result. The magnetic fields of moving charges are a direct result of that. Special relativity is very important in that respect.
In quantum field theory, with virtual photons, yes.
You are mixing virtual and real photons here.

Right.
That is a very good question, and the answer is: it depends. It depends on your reference frame, and special relativity is necessary to see this in detail.
You do not need net charges for magnetic fields.

You've helped ease my mind quite a bit on the subject. I'm the kind of person who can't delve into a subject unless i understand the "why", and it helps to know that it's more of a fundamental occurrence than something with a simple explanation i was missing. Thanks alot, now i can progress!
 
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

Back
Top