4 ms·

Thank you for the feedback. I'll review my notes and see if I can clarify this section - my key point there was simply to show that the magnetic field isn't rea

Thank you for the feedback. I'll review my notes and see if I can clarify this section - my key point there was simply to show that the magnetic field isn't really necessary - I wanted to show that it's all part of relativistic contractions made by the electric field. If I made any errors I give you my sincere apologies. Btw if you want to make edits to my work directly - you can find it as it's fully open source: https://github.com/photonlines/Intuitive-Guide-to-Maxwells-Equations https://github.com/photonlines/Intuitive-Guide-to-Maxwells-E...

nyssos 2y ago
> my key point there was simply to show that the magnetic field isn't really necessary - I wanted to show that it's all part of relativistic contractions made by the electric field. This isn't quite right, there are field configurations where the magnetic field doesn't vanish in any reference frame. This is actually the typical case: consider, for instance, two point charges moving relative to one another. The right takeaway from SR isn't that the magnetic field is fake and the electric field is real, it's that both magnetic and electric fields are frame-dependent and it's the electromagnetic field tensor that's the real physical object.
- photon_lines 2y ago
  You're 100% correct. The explanations I was reading gave me the impression that we can get rid of the magnetic field - but this only works in special cases. Right now I'm reviewing my notes and realizing that yup - they're both needed and will need to modify my explanation there or simply get rid of it entirely and keep things simple. Once again - thank you for the correction - you're a life saver this is definitely something which I overlooked and I wish I had more time to explain properly!