Why maxwell's 3rd equations has no coefficient?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lowerlowerhk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coefficient
AI Thread Summary
Maxwell's third equation, Faraday's Law, uniquely has a proportionality coefficient of -1, unlike the other three equations, which include constants due to differing units for electric field (E) and magnetic field (B). The absence of a coefficient in the third equation is attributed to the choice of units, particularly in Gaussian units where E and B are measured in the same units. The introduction of dimensional constants in the other equations arises from the need to reconcile these different units. This historical context reflects the evolution of measurement systems in physics. Understanding these unit choices clarifies why the third equation stands apart in its formulation.
lowerlowerhk
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
For the four Maxwell equations, only the third one (Faraday's Law) has a proportionality coefficient of -1, while rest have a magnetic constant or electric constant .

It doesn't seem like the units of the third law are calibrated to eliminate the constant. So why is the coefficient equal to exactly -1, not some materially dependent coefficient k?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes Dale
I second jasonRFs comment. It is purely due to the units chosen.
 
The real question is, why do the other 3 equations have dimensional constants introduced. That is because they use different units for E and B, even though they are parts of the same tensor.
 
Meir Achuz said:
The real question is, why do the other 3 equations have dimensional constants introduced. That is because they use different units for E and B, even though they are parts of the same tensor.

But this is historical - like measuring distances and times in different units. Time should be measured in meters.
 
Meir Achuz said:
The real question is, why do the other 3 equations have dimensional constants introduced. That is because they use different units for E and B, even though they are parts of the same tensor.

This is the answer I am looking for.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top