1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Magnetic field composition?

  1. Aug 8, 2017 #1
    So are there photons "flowing" from one end of a permanent magnet to the other? If so what determines the frequency?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2017 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    No, and that makes the second part moot.
  4. Aug 8, 2017 #3
    Of what then is the field composed?
  5. Aug 8, 2017 #4
    Nothing. Field is a field, entity that lives on it's own. Photons are "excitations" (whatever that means) of quantum electromagnetic field, but that doesn't justify the claim that em field is composed of anything.
  6. Aug 8, 2017 #5
    There was another thread just yesterday that veered off massively, so I think it's worth pointing out that "electromagnetic" isn't just a convenient moniker to refer to the magnetic and electric field together, but rather that they are really are one combined, inseparable entity. That is, the classic "electric field" and "magnetic field" are manifestations depending on the observer, and indeed different observers might entirely disagree on whether a certain action was caused by an electric field, or a magnetic field.
  7. Aug 8, 2017 #6

    Charles Link

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    For the OP @Mediocrates The best simple explanation for the source of the magnetic field in a permanent magnet=[e.g. a cylindrical magnet with uniform magnetization vector ## \vec{M} ##,(that points from the "-" end to the "+" end), that essentially has a "plus" (north) magnetic pole on one endface and a "minus" (south) magnetic pole on the other endface], is the explanation of "bound surface currents" from the magnetization that "circulate" around the outer cylindrical surface with the same geometry as that of the currents of a solenoid. Since these currents are the resultant edge effect of what could be viewed in a simplistic model as currents from the magnetic moments of individual atoms, there is no actual electrical charge transport from these currents. In any case, the magnetic field ## \vec{B} ## of the permanent magnet, both inside and outside the magnet can be computed from these hypothesized "surface currents" using Biot-Savart's law, and the results are consistent with the magnetic field that is observed.
  8. Aug 8, 2017 #7
    @Charles Link , that is an engineering approximation that hardly elucidates the actual generation of the magnetic field in a permanent magnet.
  9. Aug 8, 2017 #8

    Charles Link

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The exchange effect is an additional effect necessary to explain ferromagnetism, but the magnetic surface currents can be quantified with what I believe are highly accurate results. For a simple calculation, see the following post: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnetic-field-of-a-ferromagnetic-cylinder.863066/ Hopefully this doesn't start to lead too far off topic before the OP gets a chance to respond. ## \\ ## Also, Griffith's Electrodynamics book contains a very good derivation of the surface currents as he computes the vector potential ## \vec{A} ## from an arbitrary distribution of magnetization ## \vec{M} ##. I believe this result is in section 6.2 of his book.
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
  10. Aug 9, 2017 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Charles .... you are making this far more complex than what a B level topic should be :smile:
  11. Aug 10, 2017 #10
    How would one determine the existence of a field in the absence of particles?
  12. Aug 10, 2017 #11
    That's probably more of a philosophical question since that scenario wouldn't be our universe.
  13. Aug 10, 2017 #12
    Quess my question was, "can there be a field without a particle?" I thought particles give rise to fields?
  14. Aug 11, 2017 #13
    No it's the other way around, particles are states of (quantum) fields.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Discussions: Magnetic field composition?
  1. Magnetic Field (Replies: 1)

  2. Magnetic field (Replies: 4)

  3. Magnetic field (Replies: 2)

  4. Magnetic Field (Replies: 5)