Doubt reagarding magnetic fields

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the assertion that the work done by a magnetic field is zero, which is supported by Griffiths' textbook. It explains that while it appears the magnetic field is doing work, the system is dynamic, leading to time-varying magnetic fields. This variation generates an electric field that actually performs the work on charges. The attraction of magnets to iron is attributed to this electric field rather than the magnetic field itself. Thus, the original statement holds true in the context of magnetic fields and their interaction with charges.
Caesar_Rahil
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Is the statement below always true:

Work done by a magnetic field is zero.

If it is. How do magnets attract iron?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A magnetic field can do work by reducing its stored magnetic energy. When you put a magnetic BB in a magnetic field, you reduce to total stored magnetic energy of the system. The stored magnetic energy is

W = (1/2)∫B·H dVvolume= (1/2μμ0)∫B2 dVvolume

Because B is continuous (Div·B=0), and the relative permeability μ of the BB is much greater than 1, no magnetic energy is stored in it (or in its dipole field).

Now recall that the force in the z direction is Fz= ∂W/∂z

So the magnetic BB is pulled into regions of higher B.
Bob S
 
Caesar_Rahil said:
Is the statement below always true:

Work done by a magnetic field is zero.

If it is. How do magnets attract iron?

Yes. Griffiths will go as far as to explicitly state this in his textbook. Generally what happens in situations where it looks like only the magnetic field is available to do the work is that while any work is being done, the system is in a state of dynamics. This causes the magnetic field to be time-varying with reference to the charges that are being worked upon. This means that there is also an electric field from the viewpoint of the charges and it is this electric field that does actual work.
 
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...
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top