Violate current conservation in Perfect Magnetic Conductor (PMC)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the violation of current conservation in Perfect Magnetic Conductors (PMC) when electric currents are present. The original poster seeks clarification on why textbooks assert that electric currents should be zero in PMCs, expressing difficulty in proving this through boundary conditions or Lorentz force considerations. A question is raised about the specific type of current conservation being referenced, particularly whether the incoming and outgoing currents in a given volume are unequal. Additionally, there is curiosity about which parameters in PMC are considered infinite, drawing a comparison to Perfect Electric Conductors (PEC). The conversation highlights a gap in understanding regarding the behavior of electric currents in PMCs.
baby_1
Messages
159
Reaction score
16
Homework Statement
Why does having an electric current in Perfect Magnetic Conductor (PMC) violate current conservation?
Relevant Equations
Boundary conditions
Hello,
I need to know why having an electric current in Prefect Magnetic Conductor(PMC) violate current conservation. Based on the boundary conditions or lorentz force or ..., I couldn't be successful to prove that surface current can violate current conservation. In the textbooks, they mentioned the electric current should be zero but none of them explain it.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What type of current conservation are you talking about? Are you saying that for some volume, ##I_{in} \neq I_{out}## ?
 
Thanks berkeman,
Regarding this web page, I am curious to know why the electric currents should be zero.
In addition, which parameter in PMC is infinite( for example for perfect electric conductor(PEC) the conductivity (sigma) is infinite).
 

Thread 'Product of two boosts and then two inverse boosts is rotation matrix'

So is there some elegant way to do this or am I just supposed to follow my nose and sub the Taylor expansions for terms in the two boost matrices under the assumption ##v,w\ll 1##, then do three ugly matrix multiplications and get some horrifying kludge for ##R## and show that the product of ##R## and its transpose is the identity matrix with det(R)=1? Without loss of generality I made ##\mathbf{v}## point along the x-axis and since ##\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{w} = 0## I set ##w_1 = 0## to...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Alternating current in a perfect conductor
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
A Voltage and current waves in a transmission line
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
I Hall effect -- is it always applicable?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
I How Do Time-Varying Currents in Conductors Generate EM Fields and Waves?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
I [Q] Lorentz force in momentum conservation view
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
I Does a Railgun's Current Violate Conservation of Momentum?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
Why Doesn't Electric Force Cause Wires to Move?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Jackson's 6.4 - Uniformly magnetized conducting sphere
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Charge/current density inside rectangular wave guide?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Making sense of sequence of ideas in MIT OCW's 8.02 notes on Faraday
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K