On Aug 6, 7:34=A0pm, blackhead <larryhar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2 Aug, 16:59, Benj <bjac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > For more information I urge you to examine Jefimenko's expositions on
> > the subject, especially his derivation of the transformations of the
> > Lorentz force. =A0"Electromagnetic Retardation and the Theory of
> > Relativity" by Oleg D. Jefimenko available from Amazon.com.
>
> But the Lorentz Law is a special case of Faraday's Law in differential
> form when B is time independent. I don't understand where you're
> getting this idea from that Maxwell's equations aren't sufficient to
> explain the Faraday generator.
Actually the Lorentz Law is a special case of Faraday Induction where
the moving magnet represents elementary currents. These currents
produce a force upon a charge as given by the Lorentz equation. But
historically the Lorentz equation is taken as a definition of B which
places it outside the Maxwell's equations. But even if we take the
view above that it is derivable as a coordinate transformation the
forces themselves call into question whether the equations involved
are "fundamentaL" or part of Maxwell's set.
I quote from the above reference: P 322. "Although Eq.( A3.45)
(momentum transfer between mechanical and electromagnetic momentum) is
usually considered a derived equation subordinate to Lorentz force
equation, our analysis shows that Eq. (A3.45) is a fundamental
electromagnetic equation, and that it is quite correct to regard
Loretnz force equation as a consequence of Eq. (A3.45)"
Hence it follows that if the Lorentz eq is a consequence of a
fundamental momentum equation outside the Maxwellian set, it follows
that Maxwell's equations alone are not sufficient to describe all
electromagnetic phenomena as is widely asserted. OK?
|
