I Stationary Field: Why Professor and Books Differ

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter ATY
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of a stationary field, highlighting a discrepancy between a professor's lecture and textbook explanations. The professor asserts that a stationary field implies the total derivative \(\frac{du}{dt}=0\), while textbooks indicate it means \(\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=0\). Participants argue that the total derivative is not applicable unless the function is solely dependent on time. Clarification is sought on the correct interpretation of a stationary field, emphasizing that it should not depend on time at all. The conversation underscores the importance of precise terminology in understanding stationary fields in physics.
ATY
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
So, I got a question about stationary field.
In the lecture the professor said, that our field is stationary, so we have \frac{du}{dt}=0, but from what I read in books, it only means, that \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} =0. Who is right and why ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The total derivative makes no sense unless you have a function of ##t## only. A stationary field is a field that does not depend on ##t## and therefore ##\partial_t u = 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top