Talk:Maxwell equations: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
imported>Paul Wormer No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::I'm not an expert on this, & wouldn't know what answers to put in. All I can do without research is ask questions, eg did Maxwell consider the question? [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | ::I'm not an expert on this, & wouldn't know what answers to put in. All I can do without research is ask questions, eg did Maxwell consider the question? [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
::: Very early on (around 1780) it was clear that cutting magnets into two pieces always gave two poles, a North pole and a South pole, so Gauss around 1830 and Maxwell around 1870 definitely knew that a magnetic monopole was never observed. As far as I know there is no deeper reason known for the non-existence than the empirical fact that it has never been observed. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:00, 17 November 2008
I don't see anything here about the question of magnetic monopoles. Peter Jackson 12:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Classically there are no magnetic monopoles, cf. first (magnetic) law and third (electric) law . Where the third law has a charge ( = monopole) on the right-hand side, the first law has zero. When you are not satisfied with the text about this point, please go ahead change it, CZ is a wiki. --Paul Wormer 14:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on this, & wouldn't know what answers to put in. All I can do without research is ask questions, eg did Maxwell consider the question? Peter Jackson 16:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Very early on (around 1780) it was clear that cutting magnets into two pieces always gave two poles, a North pole and a South pole, so Gauss around 1830 and Maxwell around 1870 definitely knew that a magnetic monopole was never observed. As far as I know there is no deeper reason known for the non-existence than the empirical fact that it has never been observed. --Paul Wormer 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)