How does magnetic field induce current?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of how a magnetic field induces current, particularly focusing on the conditions under which this occurs, such as the necessity of a varying magnetic field. Participants explore theoretical explanations, implications of Maxwell's equations, and the relationship between electric and magnetic fields.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why only a varying magnetic field induces current, suggesting that a static magnetic field can cause alignment of domains in a conductor, potentially leading to a difference in electric field.
  • Another participant proposes that magnetism is an illusion created by electric fields and special relativity, asserting that without relative motion, magnetism does not exist.
  • Some participants reference Maxwell's equations as foundational to understanding the relationship between electric and magnetic fields, although the validity of these equations is questioned in terms of their derivation from gauge symmetry.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of U(1) gauge symmetry and its relevance to classical electromagnetic fields, with some participants expressing confusion over its significance.
  • Discussion includes the Lorentz Force and how a changing magnetic field can induce current by affecting stationary charges, with examples provided about moving wires in static magnetic fields.
  • One participant emphasizes that while electric and magnetic fields are interconnected, there is no proof that a general magnetic field can be reproduced solely by a transformed electric field.
  • Another participant argues for a pragmatic approach to understanding fields, suggesting that the quest for ultimate answers may be misguided.
  • A later reply discusses the integral form of Faraday's law and its implications for understanding induced electric fields and potentials without requiring conductors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of magnetism and its relationship to electric fields, with no consensus reached on whether magnetism is an illusion or a fundamental aspect of physics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the derivation and implications of Maxwell's equations and the significance of U(1) symmetry.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the relationship between electric and magnetic fields, particularly regarding the conditions under which currents are induced. There are unresolved questions about the derivation of Maxwell's equations and the nature of gauge symmetries.

  • #31


A Dhingra said:
so the conclusion is nature can never be well explained...
Not if your idea of "well explained" requires that the most fundamental explanation always have another explanation, then another explanation, then another ...

This is what jtbell was alluding to way back in post #3. But realistically, that type of requirement is rather immature and non-scientific. It is like my 4 year old boy who has discovered that he can always ask "why" over and over and over and over ... Scientifically, a phenomenon is considered well explained if we have a theory which accurately predicts the result of all of the empirical observations made to date.

A Dhingra said:
anyways... can you suggest me some books about Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED)that i can read to get more idea of it...
I would start with Feynman's lecture series at the University of Auckland (Vega). It is a nice overview. Also see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=408608
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


A Dhingra said:
so the conclusion is nature can never be well explained...

"Well" or satisfactorily, but not perfectly.
 
  • #33


DaleSpam said:
Not if your idea of "well explained" requires that the most fundamental explanation always have another explanation, then another explanation, then another ...

This is what jtbell was alluding to way back in post #3. But realistically, that type of requirement is rather immature and non-scientific. It is like my 4 year old boy who has discovered that he can always ask "why" over and over and over and over ... Scientifically, a phenomenon is considered well explained if we have a theory which accurately predicts the result of all of the empirical observations made to date.

I would start with Feynman's lecture series at the University of Auckland (Vega). It is a nice overview. Also see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=408608

Or even just read Feynman's book, "QED" ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691024170/?tag=pfamazon01-20 ), which was directed at laymen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34


thanks...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
681
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K