Why Does Faraday's Law Appear Differently in Various Units?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 2K views
Azelketh
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
This is maddening and i cannot find a concise explanation anywhere despite the simplicity of this question.

I keep coming across faradays law expressed as
[tex]\text{curl}\left(\mathbf{E}\right) = -\frac{1}{C^2} \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}[/tex]
Im only used to working in SI units so all i can do is guess that this is expressed in gaussian units?
and
[tex]\text{curl}\left(\mathbf{E}\right) = -\frac{1}{C} \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}[/tex]

Can anyone explain these 2 different expressions of faradays law?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Azelketh said:
This is maddening and i cannot find a concise explanation anywhere despite the simplicity of this question.

I keep coming across faradays law expressed as
[tex]\text{curl}\left(\mathbf{E}\right) = -\frac{1}{C^2} \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}[/tex]
Im only used to working in SI units so all i can do is guess that this is expressed in gaussian units?
and
[tex]\text{curl}\left(\mathbf{E}\right) = -\frac{1}{C} \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}[/tex]

Can anyone explain these 2 different expressions of faradays law?
The latter uses Gaussian, or Lorentz-Heaviside units. I have to admit to never seeing the former in a general expression for Faraday's law before. Do you have a reference for where you "came across" this form?
 
hmm, the 1/c^2 expression I've only come across once in some lecture slides for uni electromagnetism module. If you've never come it expressed in that form then it could simply be a misprint/error. As the uni course is in recess for summer break here until october it's dificulty in simply asking the lecturer who wrote them. Thanks for clearing that up Hootenanny, i'll just take it as a misprint. :)