I Defining the Forces from Magnetic Fields and Electric Fields

AI Thread Summary
Electric Field Intensity is defined as the force on a unit positive charge at a point, prompting a discussion on whether the B vector can be similarly defined as the magnetic force on a unit magnetic north pole. The concept of a unit magnetic north pole or magnetic monopoles is challenged, as they do not exist in reality. Some textbooks use the force on a hypothetical unit north monopole to derive magnetic field expressions, which raises questions about the validity of this approach. The term "magnetic field intensity vector" for the B vector is also debated, particularly in relation to its description as "Coulomb's Law for magnetism." The discussion highlights the need for clarity and accuracy in the definitions and principles of electromagnetism.
physics_nsrg
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
We define Electric Field Intensity vector at a point as the force experienced by a unit positive charge kept at a point. Is it correct to define B vector similarly that is, is B vector the magnetic force acting on an unit magnetic north pole and is it correct to call B vector Magnetic Field Intensity vector?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no such thing as a unit magnetic north pole or magnetic monopoles in general for that matter.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Vanadium 50
Thank you for the response.
In a couple of textbooks I have gone through, to calculate magnetic field at any point on the axial line and equatorial line of a bar magnet of giver pole strength, the derivation for the expression of magnetic field is done by calculating the force acting on unit north mono pole kept at the given point and in the process, Coulomb's Law for magnetism is used. Is this approach wrong and is B vector ever called magnetic field intensity vector?
 
Last edited:
If they describe the Biot-Savart Law as "Coulomb's Law for magnetism", that is a problem, yes.
 
Welcome to PF.

physics_nsrg said:
In a couple of textbooks I have gone through
Which textbooks?
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'

Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'

So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Origin of Hertzian dipole radiation
Replies
21
Views
2K
I Charge movement relative to magnetic field frame dependence/invariance
Replies
5
Views
851
I Hall effect -- is it always applicable?
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Is the Direction of Magnetic Fields Truly Conventional?
Replies
6
Views
1K
I The vector math of relative motion of wire-loop & bar magnet
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Magnetic field produced by an electric current
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Question on the Lorentz force: Why is the force not F=q(v×B) = F=qv×qB
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Induced electric fields and induced magnetic fields confusion
Replies
9
Views
3K
How do I generate a magnetic vector field using equations?
Replies
17
Views
2K
I Question about Activating Solenoids that are facing each other
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top