Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Even the vacuum version is incomplete without adding an equation for force or energy, because no meaning can be assigned to the electromagnetic field or potential otherwise than by its relationship with the force or energy.

Even today, there exists no consensus about which is the correct expression for the electromagnetic force. Most people are happy to use approximate expressions that are known to be valid only in restricted circumstances (like when the forces are caused by interactions with closed currents, or the forces are between stationary charges).

Moreover, when the vacuum equations are written in the simplified form present in most manuals, it is impossible to deduce how they should be applied to systems in motion, without adding extra assumptions, which usually are not listed together with the simple form of the equations (e.g. the curl and the divergence are written as depending on a system of coordinates, so it is not obvious how these coordinates can be defined, i.e. to which bodies they are attached).

While the vacuum equations are fundamental, they may be used as such only in few applications like quantum mechanics, where much more is needed beyond them.

In all practical applications of the Maxwell equations you must use the approximation of continuous media that can be characterized by averaged physical quantities that describe the free and bound carriers of electric charge. The useful form of the Maxwell equations is that complete with electric polarization, magnetization, electric current of the free carriers and electric charge of the free carriers. It is trivial to set all those quantities to zero, to retrieve the vacuum form of the equations.




I agree that to fully specify electromagnetism you also need to include how the fields affect charged matter. So EM = Maxwell's equations + Lorentz force equation (not sure why you say there is no consensus about what this is, that is new to me).

This is just a matter of taste, but OTOH I would not include descriptions of how some materials respond to the fields in the continuous limit as part of a definition of EM.

It is true that for most terrestrial applications you do need those to do anything useful with EM. But if you want to study plasmas you need to add Navier-Stokes to EM, doesn't mean hydrodynamics is part of EM. To study charged black holes you need EM + GR, but it still makes sense to treat them as mostly separate theories.


You also need to include how charged matter affects the forcing fields in Maxwell's equations (i.e. moving charges depositing a current field).

I actually basically agree with your viewpoint, I studied Plasma Physics in graduate school in a regime where we did _not_ use Navier-Stokes or constitutive relations and everything was in fact just little smeared-out packets of charge moving according to the Lorentz Force Law and radiating.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: