What Is the Difference Between Intensity and Density?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kira506
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Intensity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the distinction between intensity and density, particularly in the context of magnetic fields. Participants explore the definitions and implications of magnetic field intensity and magnetic flux density, addressing confusion stemming from terminology and varying units used in the field.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion over the terms intensity and density, particularly regarding their definitions in the context of magnetic fields.
  • One participant asserts that magnetic flux density "B" is the primary physical field, while magnetic field intensity "H" is an auxiliary field defined in relation to "B" and the density of magnetic dipoles "M".
  • Another participant highlights the complexity introduced by various units (Oersted, Maxwells, Weber, Gauss, Tesla) used to quantify magnetic fields, which adds to the confusion surrounding the terms.
  • Some participants suggest that the use of 'intensity' in other contexts, such as radiometry, can lead to similar misunderstandings, as it may be used interchangeably with terms like 'irradiance' or 'flux'.
  • There is mention of Maxwell's equations and how they can be expressed without considering magnetization "M" or polarization "P", focusing instead on "D" and "H".
  • One participant acknowledges a mix-up between Maxwell and Max Planck, indicating a broader confusion about terminology in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions of intensity and density, with multiple competing views and ongoing confusion regarding the terminology and its implications in magnetic field theory.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations posed by the variety of units and definitions, which can lead to misunderstandings. The discussion reflects a range of familiarity with the concepts, with some participants still learning about the relevant equations and their applications.

kira506
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
I know that this question may sound silly , but I really can't get the difference between intensity and density in general ! And the whole magnetic field thing makes it worse , in my textbook , its written that magnetic field intensity is the same as magnetic flux density , but no matter how many times I research it on the internet , I find people saying that the two terms greatly vary ! How come is intensity the same as density ? then why isn't intensity a physical property as density ? Please help !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Burn the textbook that said that.

Magnetic flux density "B" is the standard magnetic field that we all learn about. It is THE physical field when we talk about magnetic fields. It's called a density because it is higher in regions where magnetic flux lines are more tightly bunched. So it is in some sense a density.

The magnetic field intensity "H" is an auxiliary field that greatly helps us analyse magnetic fields in materials. It's just B/mu0 - M, where M is the density of magnetic dipoles in the material. It's defined as this, so it's automatically different from B, even when M = 0. It has different units, too, just in case you aren't totally convinced!
 
kira506 said:
I know that this question may sound silly , but I really can't get the difference between intensity and density in general ! And the whole magnetic field thing makes it worse , in my textbook , its written that magnetic field intensity is the same as magnetic flux density , but no matter how many times I research it on the internet , I find people saying that the two terms greatly vary ! How come is intensity the same as density ? then why isn't intensity a physical property as density ? Please help !

I understand your frustration. The large number of different units (Oersted, Maxwells, Weber, Gauss, Tesla, etc) used to quantify the magnetic field doesn't help the situation, either. Just look at http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=D101-N52 to see the variety of different units used to describe the magnetic properties of the same object.

As for the use of 'intensity' and 'density' specifically, the situation is analogous in radiometry when 'intensity' is used instead of 'irradiance' or even worse, substituted for 'flux'.

These websites may be of some help:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfie.html
http://www.irm.umn.edu/hg2m/hg2m_a/hg2m_a.html
 
mikeph said:
Burn the textbook that said that.

Magnetic flux density "B" is the standard magnetic field that we all learn about. It is THE physical field when we talk about magnetic fields. It's called a density because it is higher in regions where magnetic flux lines are more tightly bunched. So it is in some sense a density.

The magnetic field intensity "H" is an auxiliary field that greatly helps us analyse magnetic fields in materials. It's just B/mu0 - M, where M is the density of magnetic dipoles in the material. It's defined as this, so it's automatically different from B, even when M = 0. It has different units, too, just in case you aren't totally convinced!

XD I can't , I still need it .. But I think I'm kinda coninced , so the intensity of the field is "H" and "B" is the magnetic flux density :the whole magnetic field , so "H"'s presence depends on "B"'s presence which is the magnetic fild itself , thank you so much for explaining c:
 
Andy Resnick said:
I understand your frustration. The large number of different units (Oersted, Maxwells, Weber, Gauss, Tesla, etc) used to quantify the magnetic field doesn't help the situation, either. Just look at http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=D101-N52 to see the variety of different units used to describe the magnetic properties of the same object.

As for the use of 'intensity' and 'density' specifically, the situation is analogous in radiometry when 'intensity' is used instead of 'irradiance' or even worse, substituted for 'flux'.

These websites may be of some help:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfie.html
http://www.irm.umn.edu/hg2m/hg2m_a/hg2m_a.html

Thank you so much , sites helped a lot ! And yes , the whole numerous units thingie confused me a lot "H" is the strength of the magnetic field (its intensity) while B is the magnetic flux density , the field ,te image is now clearer in my mind , thanks !
 
kira506 said:
XD I can't , I still need it .. But I think I'm kinda coninced , so the intensity of the field is "H" and "B" is the magnetic flux density :the whole magnetic field , so "H"'s presence depends on "B"'s presence which is the magnetic fild itself , thank you so much for explaining c:

Yes, my solution when confused is to always think of the B field as the true macroscopic field, this then causes a magnetisation M in certain materials (depending on their structure), but a neat trick allows us to express Maxwell's equations without having to worry about M (nor the electric analogue, polarisation P), just D and H.

We can then say "in this material, H is a function of B and D is a function of E", the functions, assuming we know them, take care of the fields within the media.

But you can never be too careful with conventions. Some people (most notably theoretical physicists) define H and D in a different way such that the units are the same as B and E. So it's a good idea to make sure you check before diving into a problem, what the letters are actually meant to represent!
 
mikeph said:
Yes, my solution when confused is to always think of the B field as the true macroscopic field, this then causes a magnetisation M in certain materials (depending on their structure), but a neat trick allows us to express Maxwell's equations without having to worry about M (nor the electric analogue, polarisation P), just D and H.

We can then say "in this material, H is a function of B and D is a function of E", the functions, assuming we know them, take care of the fields within the media.

But you can never be too careful with conventions. Some people (most notably theoretical physicists) define H and D in a different way such that the units are the same as B and E. So it's a good idea to make sure you check before diving into a problem, what the letters are actually meant to represent!

I will try my best to supress my A.D.H.D and check what the letters actually represent XD they play on that a lot in our exams ,letters and their meanings in the given context, Its the first time I actually got introduced to magnetic effects of electric current and its numerous equations , I'm still at the start so I don't full grasp what D and E stand for , (you see , our curriculum is divided such that we take all classical first then start modern) so I won't see Maxwell for a longtime , Thanks a lot , I'm sure your explanation will help me in the future , your explanation really helped me visualize and understand the difference I couldn't from the textbook
 
Silly me , totally mixed up Maxwell with Max Planck , Maxwell's equation is still to come and soon , must get a good grip on names
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K