Moving electrical charges and Maxwell's equations

Click For Summary
Maxwell's Equations describe the behavior of electric and magnetic fields, emphasizing that an accelerating charge, not one moving at constant velocity, generates electromagnetic waves. A charge traveling with constant velocity produces a steady magnetic field but does not radiate energy as electromagnetic waves. The discussion highlights that while accelerating charges can create radiation, even straight-line acceleration can lead to radiation, albeit in a transient form. The conversation also touches on the wave-like behavior of electrons, suggesting that they exhibit wave properties even when moving at constant velocity, though these are not electromagnetic waves. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that radiation is fundamentally linked to acceleration, and the nature of the emitted waves depends on the motion of the charge.
  • #91
Can we please get a moderator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
kcdodd said:
Can we please get a moderator?

Huh? What for? What Wikipedia articles and what equation do you believe is wrong? What kind of discussion is this where I provide all the reference and get called "stupid", yet those who can not support their claims just scream around and wave hands without actually saying anything? Just say it already, what exactly are you so nervous about?
 
  • #93
kcdodd said:
Can we please get a moderator?

I've reported his crazy posts. I recommend others do the same. He can't even tell the difference between charge and charge density, yet he wants to claim every EM book ever written is wrong. This is yet another clear example of how a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
 
  • #94
elect_eng said:
I've reported his crazy posts.

He can't even tell the difference between charge and charge density..

Interesting reaction, and I only wanted to see some evidence for your assertions.YOUR FALSE EQUATION: E = \frac{q}{2\pi\epsilon_0*r}

It is you who has a single charge of a single electron in your equation, and moderators will tell you that, whatever the reason you want to call them. You may as well call your mum too, that will not change the reality and what has come to past. Next time be careful about the equations and try to use them before you make your conclusion, so to not embarrass yourself like this. Ok? -- At least you realized there is a TOTAL amount of charges here, now learn about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_density

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Dunnis said:
It is you who has a single charge of a single electron in your equation, and moderators will tell you that, whatever the reason you want to call them. You may as well call your mum too, that will not change the reality and what has come to past. Next time be careful about the equations and try to use them before you make your conclusion, so to not embarrass yourself like this. Ok? -- At least you realized there is a TOTAL amount of charges here, now learn about it:

No, it is you that has ignored all of the explanations given to you. I provided you a derivation in an attached jpg file. Did you even look at it after you asked for references and explanations? No you did not. I quoted a book. Did you bother to consult it? No you did not. The variable q is linear charge density with units of Coulombs per meter. It is not the single electron charge as you say. Anybody can go back into this thread and read proof that I explained this. Besides, it needs no explanation. This is such an obvious fact from the context of the equations. You are asking for explanations that are like asking what 2+2 is. Who do you think you are kidding? You are the one who is embarrassing himself.
 
Last edited:
  • #96
Dunnis said:
YOUR FALSE EQUATION: E = \frac{q}{2\pi\epsilon_0*r}

Why do you call this "my false equation"? This equation can be found in every electromagnetics book. EVERY SINGLE ONE! I gave reference to one book above. The well known book by Krauss is another, and Jackson can be consulted too. I gave a jpg file with my own derivation and kcdoddd gave a link to another derivation. You keep asking for references and we give them, yet you ignore them. What is your problem? Are you just doing this as a prank? Are you just unwilling to admit when you are wrong? Whatever the issue is you'd better come to terms with it. By the way, at one point you mentioned you do this for a living. I dare you to show this thread to your boss, or your customers if you are self-employed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
611
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
681
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K