That does not make sense.DrClaude said:
That’s completely subjective. There is nothing wrong with naming the fields at 1 ##\vec E_1## and ##\vec B_1##, respectively. In the end, there is only a single electromagnetic field so in some sense it is more natural to use that naming convention. The only reason you can split the field into contributions from different sources is that Maxwell’s equations are linear. This is not the case for all field theories.Jaaanosik said:
No, the diagram is clearly labeled, showing that E1 points left from q1 (the left arrow labeled q1E1), while the right arrow from q2 is labeled q2E2.Jaaanosik said:
That is certainly a valid option for labeling diagrams. But note that it's not "the field from q2", it's "the field at q3".Jaaanosik said:
Not really. That source is talking about placing a test charge in a field produced by 2+ charges (for a total of 3+ charges), whereas your post is about the force of a single charge acting on a single other charge. Note that you are NOT drawing field lines from each charge in your first post (or decomposing the composite lines into their individual charge contributions), which is what they do in the diagram you linked in post #3.Jaaanosik said:
Feynman's drawing of moving charges is often referenced in discussions about the behavior of electric and magnetic fields. He illustrated how charges move and how they create electric and magnetic fields, which are fundamental concepts in electromagnetism. The drawing is part of his broader work in physics, particularly in quantum electrodynamics.
The mistake often cited is related to the depiction of how moving charges generate magnetic fields. Critics argue that Feynman's representation may oversimplify the complexities of field interactions or misrepresent the direction of the fields generated by moving charges. However, many physicists believe that the drawing effectively conveys the essential concepts despite any minor inaccuracies.
Feynman was known for his deep understanding of physics and his ability to communicate complex ideas simply. While he did not explicitly acknowledge a mistake in the drawing of moving charges, he did emphasize the importance of understanding the underlying principles rather than getting caught up in the specifics of a diagram. He often encouraged critical thinking and questioning in the scientific process.
Feynman's drawings, including those of moving charges, serve as valuable pedagogical tools that help students visualize and comprehend abstract concepts in electromagnetism. They provide intuitive insights into how charges interact and how fields are generated, making complex theories more accessible. His approach has influenced teaching methods in physics and has inspired many to explore the subject further.
Yes, there are alternative representations and models that provide more detailed explanations of moving charges and their associated fields. For example, the use of vector fields, field lines, and computer simulations can give a clearer picture of how electric and magnetic fields behave in various scenarios. These alternatives can complement Feynman's drawings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena involved.