Talk:Maxwell's equations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maxwell's equations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 12 months

Other talk page banners

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 18, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics Top‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electrical engineering Top‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gauss's Law

Note: this is my first attempt to contribute to a wikipedia article so your patience is appreciated. Comment: In the article's section on Gauss's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law#Deriving_Gauss's_law_from_Coulomb's_law) it is written "Gauss's law describes the relationship between a static electric field and electric charges" I believe the word "static" should be removed here. Using "static" would be correct for "Coulomb's Law" but not "Gauss's Law". This can be seen from the main article on Gauss's Law in the section "Deriving Gauss's law from Coulomb's law" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law#Deriving_Gauss's_law_from_Coulomb's_law). In that article, they write "Since Coulomb's law only applies to stationary charges, there is no reason to expect Gauss's law to hold for moving charges based on this derivation alone. In fact, Gauss's law does hold for moving charges, and in this respect Gauss's law is more general than Coulomb's law." EMclarity (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're correct about the word static; I'll go remove it right now.

-Proxima Centari (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Proxima Centari (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jefimenko

Why the discussion of Jefimenko in the Solutions section? Lienard-Wiechert were over 60 years earlier, and Jefimenko really does not add to their work as far as I can see. Having the LW work here would be appropriate, instead of the paragraph there now.

Relativistic, Tensor calculus table

Here an esoteric antisymmetrisation notation is used, that is not explained in the text (you have to follow a link). This introduces an ugly factor of 2 (actually 2!) into some equations and not others. Besides it makes the article less self contained. Just write $F^{\mu \nu }=\partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu }-\partial ^{\nu }A^{\mu }$ etc.

An explicit form of the field tensor would make this article more self contained. Aoosten (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Ampere law

Regarding this, I have replaced the seldomly used "Ampere's modified law" that was recently put in place of the somewhat awkwardly sounding "modified Ampere's law" with the more commonly used "Ampere-Maxwell law":

Google Search	Scholar	Books	Web
"Ampere-Maxwell law"	1,480 (96.2%)	1,330 (81.8%)	12,700 (77.1%)
"modified Ampere's law"	56 (3.6%)	293 (18.0%)	3,670 (22.3%)
"Ampere's modified law"	3 (0.2%)	3 (0.2%)	102 (0.6%)

- DVdm (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@User:Constant314 please could you explain in more detail why you reverted the edit? Because the user has queried it on my talk page, and I am directing him here to discuss — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain wrong, which is sufficient reason to revert.
No WP:RS cited.
It was WP:OR or maybe WP:SYN.
The diagram in question appears as is in many reliable sources.
It was a comment in an article that should have been on the talk page. If that comment had been made on the talk page, I would not have reverted it. The editor is welcome to open a discussion and make a case here on the talk page or contact me on my talk page.

Constant314 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few relaible sources for the diagram as is:

Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, third edition, 1999, fig 9.10 on page 379.
Harrington, Introduction to Electromagnetic Engineering, Dover, 2003, fig. 10-4, page 262.
Prucell, Electricity and Magnetism, 2011, fig 9.7, page 333.
Halliday, Resnick & Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, 2003 fig. 34-5, page 805

Constant314 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]