Timeline for Magnetic force and Coulomb force
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2019 at 5:19 | comment | added | jonk | @HarrySvensson I have been too busy today. Just came back and decided to look. The question seems a Gordian knot of misunderstandings and it exhausts me just thinking about unwinding it. Worse, I don't think the OP has invested even a shred of time at these easier pieces to grab up before asking. So I am going to let someone (anyone) else straighten things up, if possible. And my respect goes to them for it. I just don't have the energy given how this was written and the evident lack of self-investment. Maybe it's just a language barrier that is making me tired, though. | |
| Nov 26, 2019 at 5:07 | comment | added | jonk | @MrsChemistry As your sole answer adds below, you should spend lots of time in volume 2 (and some time also in the latter parts of volume 1) of the Feynman Lecture series. Feynman was a often a pain to listen to, so I credit the clarity and quality of these volumes more to the four or five folks who helped develop, prepare, organize, and then write it. But the imagination space from Feynman illustrated there is wonderful. | |
| Nov 26, 2019 at 4:59 | comment | added | jonk | @MrsChemistry I read it. I don't have a way of answering it because you've provided no foundation I accept and made claims I don't buy. Which means we don't share a perspective from which to discuss your question. I was hoping you'd go read something I've also read. Perhaps then we could find a shared reference point. Otherwise? I'd much rather let others wrestle the question into better shape with you. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:32 | comment | added | Harry Svensson | MrsChemistry, if you write their name like @MrsChemistry (@ symbol + their name, just type the first few letters in their name and then press tab) then the ones you are talking to will be alerted the same way you were alerted when I wrote this comment. - Neil and curd and jonk has probably not seen your responses unless they've come back to this question a second time on their own accord. - Knowing Neil and Curd and Jonk I think all 3 of them has come back to this question on their own accord already. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:17 | vote | accept | Mrs Chemistry | ||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:17 | |||||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:16 | vote | accept | Mrs Chemistry | ||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:17 | |||||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:10 | answer | added | Curd | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 10:43 | comment | added | Mrs Chemistry | jonk did you read my question? | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 10:40 | comment | added | jonk | Perhaps given your background, you may be better served with a thorough reading of Sherwood and Chabay's Matter & Interactions, 3rd edition or later. It is very accessible to non physicist undergrads who don't have extensive math training, it avoids gradients and curl and tensors, and yet may manage to better shape your question. It is a very good introduction and it doesn't over simplify or ignore necessary prospectives. I suspect you will come away with very new appreciations from it. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 10:36 | comment | added | Mrs Chemistry | relativity cannot explain magnetism fully to be a relativistic electric force just partially. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 10:34 | history | edited | Mrs Chemistry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 573 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2019 at 10:24 | comment | added | jonk | Are you familiar with the non coulomb electric force? Are you familiar with the fact that the magnetic force is a classic, non relativistic force that can be replaced with relativistic theory? Have you tried to read any of the very excellent Feynman lecture series freely available on the web, and in particular volume 2? Are you familiar with the idea of the A-field? (See chapters 14 & 15, vol. 2.) Could you show us here any quantitative development for your question? Your question asserts things not shown. I'd like to see a better argument. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 10:15 | comment | added | Mrs Chemistry | Curd I will edit my question. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 10:15 | comment | added | Mrs Chemistry | Neil_UK i am a chemist with an interest in physics , electrical engineering and psychology. However my university degree is the chemist's one. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 9:34 | comment | added | Curd | It is not clear what you asking. Do you want to compare the situation observed from two different frames of reference (one at rest ("static oberver"); one moving with the electrons)? BTW are the electrons moving at the same speed? You have to make this clear! Why do you think there are any restrictions ("forbidden to have same magnitude") concerning the electric and magnetic force? How did you "try to find a case where this is true"? Why don't you show what you tried? We can not read your mind! | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 9:11 | comment | added | Neil_UK | Shouldn't your name be Mrs Physics rather than Mrs Chemistry? Perhaps this should be asked on the physics board? FWIW I don't think there's any arbitrary requirement on the equality or otherwise of electric and magnetic forces as you move between frames of reference. As you say, there is a prohibition on travelling at c. I would think therefore that the latter trumps the former. | |
| S Nov 25, 2019 at 8:51 | history | suggested | KJA |
Added Additional Tags
|
|
| Nov 25, 2019 at 8:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 25, 2019 at 8:51 | |||||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 8:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 8:44 | |||||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 8:32 | history | asked | Mrs Chemistry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |