Harry Veeder wrote: > Maxwell's theory needs the field concept. The theory says and > electric force can not be present without an electric field. > > If we follow Maxwell's theory to the letter, it says there will be no > electric field outside a current carrying wire.
I don't know what you're talking about here. If by "Maxwell's theory" you mean Maxwell's four equations, as they are normally written, and as they are embedded in the model of special relativity (which is how this is normally applied), then what you said is simply false. If there is a current flowing through a resistive wire, then there is an E field within the wire directed parallel to the wire. That E field is what drives the current, and its value is proportional to \rho*I where \rho is the resistivity per unit length of the wire. The curl of the E field within the wire and near the surface of the wire is zero, since Del x E = -dB/dt in rationalized CGS units. Since the curl is zero, if the field points along the wire just within the wire, it must also point along the wire just outside the wire. Otherwise you'd get a nonzero integral of the E vector around a small loop which is partly inside the wire and partly outside the wire, which would imply the curl was nonzero. For points near the wire, that field runs parallel to the wire. This field is independent of the presence or absence of a charge outside the wire. Arguments straight out of Purcell, based directly on Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law, lead to the conclusion that a point charge located close to the wire will also induce a local charge on the wire, which will result in a local field which is perpendicular to the surface of the wire. This field vanishes if we remove the external charge. But did you perhaps mean something else by "Maxwell's theory? (Incidentally I said "As embedded in the model of SR" because without that extra bit of icing you have no way of transforming the equations from one frame of reference to another, and no answer to the question of what happens when moving a uniform velocity.) > Consequently, the > theory leads one to expect an electric force is absent as well. > > Weber's theory is not built on the field concept, so this curious > expectation does not arise. > > My analysis is based on reading of this preface to the book suggested > by Taylor J. Smith. > http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Preface-Webers-Electrodynamics.pdf > > > Harry > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" > <[email protected]> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009 6:18 pm Subject: > Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire > Carrying a Constant Current > >> >> Harry Veeder wrote: >>> fyi Harry >>> >>> Foundations of Physics © Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999 >>> 10.1023/A:1018874523513 >>> >>> The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a >>> Constant Current >>> >>> A. K. T. Assis, W. A. Rodrigues Jr. and A. J. Mania >>> >>> Abstract We present the opinion of some authors who believe >> there is >>> no force between a stationary charge and a stationary resistive >>> wire carrying a constant current. >> That's stated a lot, but it's just sloppiness. Anyone who knows >> electronics realizes it's not really true. >> >> A good conductor carrying small current has *nearly* zero voltage >> drop along any small length, and calling the drop "zero" is usually >> "good enough". But really the voltage drop along any segment is >> equal to I*Rwhere R is the resistance of that segment. >> >> When the voltage drop along a (resistive) wire is nonzero, then >> *any* path which leads from a higher voltage point on the wire to a >> lower voltage point on the same wire must traverse the same exact >> potential change, which means that there must be an electric field >> *outside* the wire, running parallel to the wire. >> >> This is well known but, as I said, usually neglected, because it's >> usually too small to matter in real-world problems. >> >> The fact that there's an "image charge" induced in the wire as >> well, which consequently must be having its effect on the charge >> sitting outside the wire, is certainly the case and could even be >> called "obvious", but it's not something I ever thought of until I >> saw it mentioned in the abstract. :-) >> >> >>> We show that this force is different from zero and present its >>> main components: the force due to the charges induced in the wire >>> by the test charge and a force proportional to the current in the >>> resistive wire. We also discuss briefly a component of the force >>> proportional to the square of the current which should exist >>> according to some models and another component due to the >>> acceleration of the conduction electrons in a curved wire >>> carrying a dc current (centripetal acceleration). Finally, we >>> analyze experiments showing the existence of the >> electric> field proportional to the current in resistive wires. >>> complete paper available here: >>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/q6634pp556m08500/fulltext.html >>> >>> >>> >> > >
