- #1

- 19

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter transparent
- Start date

- #1

- 19

- 0

- #2

- 31,238

- 7,956

There is no proof for it, it is an empirically measured law.

- #3

- 19

- 0

There is no proof for it, it is an empirically measured law.

So is it an axiom? I always thought they declared a law only after some mathematical proof. I mean, for all we know, the experiment might be erroneous.

Edit:Were all Maxwell's equations experimentally determined? Gauss's law seems pretty intuitive. I can't understand the others.

- #4

- 31,238

- 7,956

- #5

- 270

- 5

So is it an axiom? I always thought they declared a law only after some mathematical proof. I mean, for all we know, the experiment might be erroneous.

Edit:Were all Maxwell's equations experimentally determined? Gauss's law seems pretty intuitive. I can't understand the others.

Ampère's circuital law is the magnetic version of Gauss's law, if Gauss's law is intuitive, why isn't Ampère's?

- #6

WannabeNewton

Science Advisor

- 5,800

- 536

- #7

- 19

- 0

I suppose you are right. I always imagined that the basic axioms of the universe would be much simpler than this.

Ampère's circuital law is the magnetic version of Gauss's law, if Gauss's law is intuitive, why isn't Ampère's?

Gauss's law is simply based on the fact that if any curve enters/exits a closed Gaussian surface, it must exit/enter it as well, as long as it does not have an end/origin bounded by the closed surface. Ampere's circuital law is completely different.

- #8

AlephZero

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 6,994

- 293

I mean, for all we know, the experiment might be erroneous.

Sure. And if you figure out how to do an

Gauss's law seems pretty intuitive. I can't understand the others.

Sorry, but there is no law of Physics which says "the universe is so simple that everybody can understand it". Keep trying - you will probably get there eventually.

Last edited:

- #9

BruceW

Homework Helper

- 3,611

- 120

We are really talking about two mathematical theorems here (as WannabeNewton mentioned). The divergence theorem and the Kelvin-Stokes theorem. Now you say they are completely different, but actually, they are both special cases of the same theorem: the generalised Stokes' theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_theoremGauss's law is simply based on the fact that if any curve enters/exits a closed Gaussian surface, it must exit/enter it as well, as long as it does not have an end/origin bounded by the closed surface. Ampere's circuital law is completely different.

That may not be much help to you now if you have not learned much differential geometry. (I haven't really either). But you can sleep soundly, safe in the knowledge that there is an elegant generalisation :)

- #10

- 1,233

- 18

These are of course the integral forms.

To get to the differential forms you do need the vector calculus identities in addition to a continuum approximation.

- #11

BruceW

Homework Helper

- 3,611

- 120

- #12

- 17,596

- 8,591

[tex]\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}-\frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{E}=\vec{j},[/tex]

for the case of stationary, i.e., time-independent fields. Then the local form reads

[tex]\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}=\vec{j},[/tex]

and you get the circuital law by integrating over a surface, using Stokes integral theorem,

[tex]\int_{\partial F} \mathrm{d} \vec{x} \cdot \vec{B}=\int_{F} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{F} \cdot \vec{j}=i_{F}.[/tex]

Here, the convention of the orientation is the standard one, i.e., given the orientation of [itex]F[/itex], i.e., the direction of the area-element vectors [itex]\mathrm{d}^2 \vec{F}[/itex], the direction of the tangent vectors [itex]\mathrm{d} \vec{x}[/itex] of its boundary curve [itex]\partial F[/itex] is according to the right-hand rule. The direction of the area-element vector determines the sign of the current through the area, [itex]i_F[/itex].

- #13

- 1

- 0

Law of continuity: ∂ρ/∂t + ∇⋅j=0

∇xB=∇x(∇xA)=∇(∇⋅A)-∇

=-∇(μ/4π*∫(∇'⋅(j'/(r-r')) -∇'⋅j'/(r-r'))dv') + μj=-∇(μ/4π*∫(∇'⋅(j'/(r-r')) +∂ρ'/∂t/(r-r')dv') - μj=-∇(μ/4π(∫j'/(r-r')⋅dS' +∫∂ρ'/∂t/(r-r')dv')) + μj=

(Now we assume that the body is closed, so there is no current in the surface. Then, the integral over the surface is 0(j'⋅dS'=0))

=-∇(μ/4π*∂/∂t(∫ρ'/(r-r')dv'))+ μj=με∂/∂t(-∇(1/4πε*∫ρ'/(r-r')dv')) + μj=με∂/∂t(-∇Φ) + μj=μj + με∂E/∂t→∇xB=μj + με∂E/∂t

As you can see, it can be proved. I can't believe that some teachers see it as an experimental poof instead of trying to prove it.

Share: