Can someone explain Gauss' Law for Magnetism

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Gauss' Law for Magnetism, exploring its mathematical formulation and conceptual understanding. Participants seek to clarify the relationship between the mathematical operators involved, particularly the nabla operator, and the physical interpretation of magnetic fields and their divergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to understand how the dot product relates to the resultant vector being normal to two or three vectors, questioning the dimensionality involved.
  • Another participant points out a confusion between the dot product and the cross product, clarifying that the dot product results in a scalar.
  • Some participants discuss the nature of the nabla operator, noting it behaves like a vector but is not a true vector, and suggest that terms like "normal" are not applicable to nabla.
  • A participant attempts to rephrase their question to focus on the interpretation of the dot product of nabla and B, relating it to the rates of change of B in three dimensions.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of divergence in the context of magnetic fields, with one participant suggesting it relates to the flow of magnetic lines from a closed surface.
  • Questions arise regarding the nature of magnetic lines, whether they are finite or infinite, and how they relate to the concept of divergence.
  • Another participant provides an analogy using fluid dynamics to explain divergence and curl, relating it to air flow and conservation equations.
  • Several participants express a need for clarification on the physical interpretation of mathematical concepts, such as the shape and size of volumes in relation to flux lines.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and uncertainties regarding the interpretation of mathematical concepts and their physical implications. No consensus is reached on the nature of magnetic lines or the clarity of the explanations provided.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for further exploration of definitions and interpretations, particularly regarding the divergence of magnetic fields and the nature of the nabla operator. Some questions remain unanswered, particularly about the interaction of flux lines and the dimensionality of the concepts discussed.

  • #31
Vanadium. If you know what is remotely close to true, would you please share it?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Why don't you take a look at a textbook? Purcell is a good one.
 
  • #33
Is it that complicated to explain in a few sentences?
 
  • #34
wow, that was a long list to read thru.

I may have some insite, but its probably elementary compared to what everyone was talking about.

when you have nabla dot B = 0 this is indicating the divergence is zero, or in other words, what goes in comes back out. This is true for any arbitrary surface or volume.

There is no such thing as a magnetic monopole like in electricity (positive or neg charged particles), so only dipoles exist (pairs of sources and sinks). This means the magnetic field wraps around on itself. The field lines have a direction from positive to negative.

Now, what actually makes a magnet work I am not too sure. I think its the rotation of atoms and their polarity (when they are all aligned a certain way) hence the term magnetic moment when describing magnetization? Not sure, but this is definitley an interesting topic and thought Id thro in my two cents. Thanks.
 
  • #35
Thanks for that. I understand now, that the divergence is zero and that what goes out comes back in. I think divergence is probably a misnomer. I like 'netfluxthroughput' better. lol Much more descriptive. Divergence seems to imply things separating as a function of time.
So if Nabla dot B = 0, tell me a physical case where Nabla dot (something) =1. This would imply that much enters a volume and nothing ever leaves. Black hole? lol
Nabla dot black hole=1 Sorry for being flip but I'm exhausted from trying to get a lay explanation for this.
 
  • #36
an example where the divergence is not zero would be an electrically charged particle.

Say you have a positivley charged atom, this serves as a source of an electric field. The field emits in all directions. put a control volume around this particle and ur divergence is larger than one because you have more coming out then going in. --> nabla dot E = q ; where E = electric field and q = electric charge.

Another example would be the end of a garden hose. When you put a control volume around the end, water is coming out and it is acting as a source. No water is entering the control volume.

Its all really dependent of what you choose your control volume to be and if there are items within the contol volume that cancel out your sources, such as a water drain or a negativley charged particle.

And yes, i think there is speculation that black holes may be magnetic monopoles. this gets into string theory and stuff, but I am not too sure about all that.
 
  • #37
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K