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
Thread 'Is there a white hole inside every black hole?'
This is what I am thinking. How much feasible is it? There is a white hole inside every black hole The white hole spits mass/energy out continuously The mass/energy that is spit out of a white hole drops back into it eventually. This is because of extreme space time curvature around the white hole Ironically this extreme space time curvature of the space around a white hole is caused by the huge mass/energy packed in the white hole Because of continuously spitting mass/energy which keeps...
Back
Top