Different predictions from differential vs integral form of the Maxwell–Faraday equation?












3














Assume a toroidal solenoid with a variable magnetic field inside (and zero outside) and a circular wire around one of the sides.
Because there is no magnetic field outside the solenoid, we have
$$nabla times E = - frac{partial B}{partial t}=0,$$
which impies that E is conservative, that is,
$$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell =0$$



On the other hand, using the integral form we get:
$$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell = - frac{partial}{partial t}int_Sigma B cdot dS ne0,$$
because there is a changing B inside the surface.



What is it wrong with my reasoning?










share|cite|improve this question



























    3














    Assume a toroidal solenoid with a variable magnetic field inside (and zero outside) and a circular wire around one of the sides.
    Because there is no magnetic field outside the solenoid, we have
    $$nabla times E = - frac{partial B}{partial t}=0,$$
    which impies that E is conservative, that is,
    $$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell =0$$



    On the other hand, using the integral form we get:
    $$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell = - frac{partial}{partial t}int_Sigma B cdot dS ne0,$$
    because there is a changing B inside the surface.



    What is it wrong with my reasoning?










    share|cite|improve this question

























      3












      3








      3


      2





      Assume a toroidal solenoid with a variable magnetic field inside (and zero outside) and a circular wire around one of the sides.
      Because there is no magnetic field outside the solenoid, we have
      $$nabla times E = - frac{partial B}{partial t}=0,$$
      which impies that E is conservative, that is,
      $$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell =0$$



      On the other hand, using the integral form we get:
      $$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell = - frac{partial}{partial t}int_Sigma B cdot dS ne0,$$
      because there is a changing B inside the surface.



      What is it wrong with my reasoning?










      share|cite|improve this question













      Assume a toroidal solenoid with a variable magnetic field inside (and zero outside) and a circular wire around one of the sides.
      Because there is no magnetic field outside the solenoid, we have
      $$nabla times E = - frac{partial B}{partial t}=0,$$
      which impies that E is conservative, that is,
      $$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell =0$$



      On the other hand, using the integral form we get:
      $$int_{partial Sigma} E.dell = - frac{partial}{partial t}int_Sigma B cdot dS ne0,$$
      because there is a changing B inside the surface.



      What is it wrong with my reasoning?







      electromagnetism maxwell-equations






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 12 hours ago









      Wolphram jonny

      10.8k22553




      10.8k22553






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          Your main problem is between your first and second equation. You are indeed correct that outside of the solenoid, the curl of the electric field is zero. However, this is not enough to conclude that



          $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=0$$



          if $partialSigma$ is a loop which goes around the solenoid.



          This is a little counter-intuitive if you've always had "$boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative" drilled into your head. Indeed, because $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ in some open neighbourhoods of space, but not globally (in particular, the curl fails to vanish inside the solenoid), then you will only be able to find a potential for $textbf{E}$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ locally. You will not be able to find such a function globally and, in particular, you will not be able to find such a function on an open neighbourhood that surrounds but does not include the solenoid itself.



          The easy way to see this is just through direct application of Stoke's theorem. We have



          $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=int_{Sigma}(boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E})cdotmathrm{d}textbf{S}.$$



          Thus, if $partialSigma$ doesn't surround the solenoid (or if it can be continuously deformed into a loop that doesn't surround the solenoid without passing through the solenoid), then this integral vanishes, and $textbf{E}$ is conservative locally. However, if $partialSigma$ does surround the solenoid, then the surface integral picks up contributions for which the curl of $textbf{E}$ doesn't vanish, and the integral is no longer nonzero.



          I could stop here, and it'd probably be fine, but this answer leaves something to be desired. So I'll conclude by mentioning the actual origin of this problem -- namely topology. By using this setup, what we have essentially done is claimed that $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere except for at the location of the solenoid. Thus, let's just remove the solenoid from space and talk about what happens. If our space $X$ now takes the form of $mathbb{R}^3$ with a cylinder removed, then the problem now becomes:



          If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does the induced EMF around any loop in $X$ vanish?



          Or, equivalently (and more mathematically), we have



          If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does there exist a function $Phi$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ everywhere on $X$?



          The latter form of this question is a well-known topological question with a well-known answer. In particular, the answer depends on a mathematical invariant known as the de-Rham cohomology of the space $X$, which is a group that encodes certain topological properties of the space. If the de-Rham cohomology group is trivial, then $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative everywhere. Otherwise, this is simply not the case. In our example, the (first) de-Rham cohomology group of $mathbb{R}^3$ minus a cylinder is nontrivial (I believe it is the integers $mathbb{Z}$, but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and thus the vanishing of the curl outside of the solenoid isn't enough to guarantee that $textbf{E}$ is conservative globally.



          These types of topological arguments are the origin of several physical effects such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Dirac quantization of magnetic and electric charge, and the analogous quantization of charges in extended objects (branes) in string theory/M-theory.



          I hope this helps, and I hope I've given enough information for you to start learning more about this stuff!






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            Fantastic answer!!
            – DanielC
            10 hours ago



















          1














          Your conclusion that the electric field is conservative is wrong; from Stokes' theorem,



          $$oint_{partial Sigma} mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{l} = iint_Sigma nabla times mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{S},~~~~~~$$



          and the curl of $mathbf{E}$ is not zero everywhere on $Sigma$.






          share|cite|improve this answer































            0














            You are re-discovering the Aharonov-Bohm effect. it is not a problem of differential vs integral form of Maxwell equations, but the issue is that in order to prove equivalence between the local condition on vanishing curl and the global of vanishing of the line integral of the field is required a simply connected domain. Which is not the case if you have a toroidal solenoid (every closed loop around the solenoid cannot be contracted to a point).



            For more information see a previous Q&A. In particular, among the first comments you'll find a reference to an experiment performed with a toroidal solenoid.






            share|cite|improve this answer





























              -1














              Because you can get that magnetic field with infinitely long selenoid and that is an idealization. There are no magnetic charges, $nabla cdot B=0$ and magnetic field always forms closed lines.






              share|cite|improve this answer





















                Your Answer





                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
                StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
                StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
                });
                });
                }, "mathjax-editing");

                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "151"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451919%2fdifferent-predictions-from-differential-vs-integral-form-of-the-maxwell-faraday%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                4 Answers
                4






                active

                oldest

                votes








                4 Answers
                4






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                4














                Your main problem is between your first and second equation. You are indeed correct that outside of the solenoid, the curl of the electric field is zero. However, this is not enough to conclude that



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=0$$



                if $partialSigma$ is a loop which goes around the solenoid.



                This is a little counter-intuitive if you've always had "$boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative" drilled into your head. Indeed, because $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ in some open neighbourhoods of space, but not globally (in particular, the curl fails to vanish inside the solenoid), then you will only be able to find a potential for $textbf{E}$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ locally. You will not be able to find such a function globally and, in particular, you will not be able to find such a function on an open neighbourhood that surrounds but does not include the solenoid itself.



                The easy way to see this is just through direct application of Stoke's theorem. We have



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=int_{Sigma}(boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E})cdotmathrm{d}textbf{S}.$$



                Thus, if $partialSigma$ doesn't surround the solenoid (or if it can be continuously deformed into a loop that doesn't surround the solenoid without passing through the solenoid), then this integral vanishes, and $textbf{E}$ is conservative locally. However, if $partialSigma$ does surround the solenoid, then the surface integral picks up contributions for which the curl of $textbf{E}$ doesn't vanish, and the integral is no longer nonzero.



                I could stop here, and it'd probably be fine, but this answer leaves something to be desired. So I'll conclude by mentioning the actual origin of this problem -- namely topology. By using this setup, what we have essentially done is claimed that $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere except for at the location of the solenoid. Thus, let's just remove the solenoid from space and talk about what happens. If our space $X$ now takes the form of $mathbb{R}^3$ with a cylinder removed, then the problem now becomes:



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does the induced EMF around any loop in $X$ vanish?



                Or, equivalently (and more mathematically), we have



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does there exist a function $Phi$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ everywhere on $X$?



                The latter form of this question is a well-known topological question with a well-known answer. In particular, the answer depends on a mathematical invariant known as the de-Rham cohomology of the space $X$, which is a group that encodes certain topological properties of the space. If the de-Rham cohomology group is trivial, then $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative everywhere. Otherwise, this is simply not the case. In our example, the (first) de-Rham cohomology group of $mathbb{R}^3$ minus a cylinder is nontrivial (I believe it is the integers $mathbb{Z}$, but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and thus the vanishing of the curl outside of the solenoid isn't enough to guarantee that $textbf{E}$ is conservative globally.



                These types of topological arguments are the origin of several physical effects such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Dirac quantization of magnetic and electric charge, and the analogous quantization of charges in extended objects (branes) in string theory/M-theory.



                I hope this helps, and I hope I've given enough information for you to start learning more about this stuff!






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 1




                  Fantastic answer!!
                  – DanielC
                  10 hours ago
















                4














                Your main problem is between your first and second equation. You are indeed correct that outside of the solenoid, the curl of the electric field is zero. However, this is not enough to conclude that



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=0$$



                if $partialSigma$ is a loop which goes around the solenoid.



                This is a little counter-intuitive if you've always had "$boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative" drilled into your head. Indeed, because $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ in some open neighbourhoods of space, but not globally (in particular, the curl fails to vanish inside the solenoid), then you will only be able to find a potential for $textbf{E}$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ locally. You will not be able to find such a function globally and, in particular, you will not be able to find such a function on an open neighbourhood that surrounds but does not include the solenoid itself.



                The easy way to see this is just through direct application of Stoke's theorem. We have



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=int_{Sigma}(boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E})cdotmathrm{d}textbf{S}.$$



                Thus, if $partialSigma$ doesn't surround the solenoid (or if it can be continuously deformed into a loop that doesn't surround the solenoid without passing through the solenoid), then this integral vanishes, and $textbf{E}$ is conservative locally. However, if $partialSigma$ does surround the solenoid, then the surface integral picks up contributions for which the curl of $textbf{E}$ doesn't vanish, and the integral is no longer nonzero.



                I could stop here, and it'd probably be fine, but this answer leaves something to be desired. So I'll conclude by mentioning the actual origin of this problem -- namely topology. By using this setup, what we have essentially done is claimed that $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere except for at the location of the solenoid. Thus, let's just remove the solenoid from space and talk about what happens. If our space $X$ now takes the form of $mathbb{R}^3$ with a cylinder removed, then the problem now becomes:



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does the induced EMF around any loop in $X$ vanish?



                Or, equivalently (and more mathematically), we have



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does there exist a function $Phi$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ everywhere on $X$?



                The latter form of this question is a well-known topological question with a well-known answer. In particular, the answer depends on a mathematical invariant known as the de-Rham cohomology of the space $X$, which is a group that encodes certain topological properties of the space. If the de-Rham cohomology group is trivial, then $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative everywhere. Otherwise, this is simply not the case. In our example, the (first) de-Rham cohomology group of $mathbb{R}^3$ minus a cylinder is nontrivial (I believe it is the integers $mathbb{Z}$, but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and thus the vanishing of the curl outside of the solenoid isn't enough to guarantee that $textbf{E}$ is conservative globally.



                These types of topological arguments are the origin of several physical effects such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Dirac quantization of magnetic and electric charge, and the analogous quantization of charges in extended objects (branes) in string theory/M-theory.



                I hope this helps, and I hope I've given enough information for you to start learning more about this stuff!






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 1




                  Fantastic answer!!
                  – DanielC
                  10 hours ago














                4












                4








                4






                Your main problem is between your first and second equation. You are indeed correct that outside of the solenoid, the curl of the electric field is zero. However, this is not enough to conclude that



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=0$$



                if $partialSigma$ is a loop which goes around the solenoid.



                This is a little counter-intuitive if you've always had "$boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative" drilled into your head. Indeed, because $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ in some open neighbourhoods of space, but not globally (in particular, the curl fails to vanish inside the solenoid), then you will only be able to find a potential for $textbf{E}$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ locally. You will not be able to find such a function globally and, in particular, you will not be able to find such a function on an open neighbourhood that surrounds but does not include the solenoid itself.



                The easy way to see this is just through direct application of Stoke's theorem. We have



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=int_{Sigma}(boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E})cdotmathrm{d}textbf{S}.$$



                Thus, if $partialSigma$ doesn't surround the solenoid (or if it can be continuously deformed into a loop that doesn't surround the solenoid without passing through the solenoid), then this integral vanishes, and $textbf{E}$ is conservative locally. However, if $partialSigma$ does surround the solenoid, then the surface integral picks up contributions for which the curl of $textbf{E}$ doesn't vanish, and the integral is no longer nonzero.



                I could stop here, and it'd probably be fine, but this answer leaves something to be desired. So I'll conclude by mentioning the actual origin of this problem -- namely topology. By using this setup, what we have essentially done is claimed that $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere except for at the location of the solenoid. Thus, let's just remove the solenoid from space and talk about what happens. If our space $X$ now takes the form of $mathbb{R}^3$ with a cylinder removed, then the problem now becomes:



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does the induced EMF around any loop in $X$ vanish?



                Or, equivalently (and more mathematically), we have



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does there exist a function $Phi$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ everywhere on $X$?



                The latter form of this question is a well-known topological question with a well-known answer. In particular, the answer depends on a mathematical invariant known as the de-Rham cohomology of the space $X$, which is a group that encodes certain topological properties of the space. If the de-Rham cohomology group is trivial, then $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative everywhere. Otherwise, this is simply not the case. In our example, the (first) de-Rham cohomology group of $mathbb{R}^3$ minus a cylinder is nontrivial (I believe it is the integers $mathbb{Z}$, but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and thus the vanishing of the curl outside of the solenoid isn't enough to guarantee that $textbf{E}$ is conservative globally.



                These types of topological arguments are the origin of several physical effects such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Dirac quantization of magnetic and electric charge, and the analogous quantization of charges in extended objects (branes) in string theory/M-theory.



                I hope this helps, and I hope I've given enough information for you to start learning more about this stuff!






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Your main problem is between your first and second equation. You are indeed correct that outside of the solenoid, the curl of the electric field is zero. However, this is not enough to conclude that



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=0$$



                if $partialSigma$ is a loop which goes around the solenoid.



                This is a little counter-intuitive if you've always had "$boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative" drilled into your head. Indeed, because $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ in some open neighbourhoods of space, but not globally (in particular, the curl fails to vanish inside the solenoid), then you will only be able to find a potential for $textbf{E}$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ locally. You will not be able to find such a function globally and, in particular, you will not be able to find such a function on an open neighbourhood that surrounds but does not include the solenoid itself.



                The easy way to see this is just through direct application of Stoke's theorem. We have



                $$oint_{partialSigma}textbf{E}cdotmathrm{d}boldsymbol{ell}=int_{Sigma}(boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E})cdotmathrm{d}textbf{S}.$$



                Thus, if $partialSigma$ doesn't surround the solenoid (or if it can be continuously deformed into a loop that doesn't surround the solenoid without passing through the solenoid), then this integral vanishes, and $textbf{E}$ is conservative locally. However, if $partialSigma$ does surround the solenoid, then the surface integral picks up contributions for which the curl of $textbf{E}$ doesn't vanish, and the integral is no longer nonzero.



                I could stop here, and it'd probably be fine, but this answer leaves something to be desired. So I'll conclude by mentioning the actual origin of this problem -- namely topology. By using this setup, what we have essentially done is claimed that $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere except for at the location of the solenoid. Thus, let's just remove the solenoid from space and talk about what happens. If our space $X$ now takes the form of $mathbb{R}^3$ with a cylinder removed, then the problem now becomes:



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does the induced EMF around any loop in $X$ vanish?



                Or, equivalently (and more mathematically), we have



                If $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere on $X$, then does there exist a function $Phi$ such that $textbf{E}=-boldsymbol{nabla}Phi$ everywhere on $X$?



                The latter form of this question is a well-known topological question with a well-known answer. In particular, the answer depends on a mathematical invariant known as the de-Rham cohomology of the space $X$, which is a group that encodes certain topological properties of the space. If the de-Rham cohomology group is trivial, then $boldsymbol{nabla}timestextbf{E}=0$ everywhere implies that $textbf{E}$ is conservative everywhere. Otherwise, this is simply not the case. In our example, the (first) de-Rham cohomology group of $mathbb{R}^3$ minus a cylinder is nontrivial (I believe it is the integers $mathbb{Z}$, but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and thus the vanishing of the curl outside of the solenoid isn't enough to guarantee that $textbf{E}$ is conservative globally.



                These types of topological arguments are the origin of several physical effects such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Dirac quantization of magnetic and electric charge, and the analogous quantization of charges in extended objects (branes) in string theory/M-theory.



                I hope this helps, and I hope I've given enough information for you to start learning more about this stuff!







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 11 hours ago









                Bob Knighton

                3,910826




                3,910826








                • 1




                  Fantastic answer!!
                  – DanielC
                  10 hours ago














                • 1




                  Fantastic answer!!
                  – DanielC
                  10 hours ago








                1




                1




                Fantastic answer!!
                – DanielC
                10 hours ago




                Fantastic answer!!
                – DanielC
                10 hours ago











                1














                Your conclusion that the electric field is conservative is wrong; from Stokes' theorem,



                $$oint_{partial Sigma} mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{l} = iint_Sigma nabla times mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{S},~~~~~~$$



                and the curl of $mathbf{E}$ is not zero everywhere on $Sigma$.






                share|cite|improve this answer




























                  1














                  Your conclusion that the electric field is conservative is wrong; from Stokes' theorem,



                  $$oint_{partial Sigma} mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{l} = iint_Sigma nabla times mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{S},~~~~~~$$



                  and the curl of $mathbf{E}$ is not zero everywhere on $Sigma$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                    1












                    1








                    1






                    Your conclusion that the electric field is conservative is wrong; from Stokes' theorem,



                    $$oint_{partial Sigma} mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{l} = iint_Sigma nabla times mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{S},~~~~~~$$



                    and the curl of $mathbf{E}$ is not zero everywhere on $Sigma$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    Your conclusion that the electric field is conservative is wrong; from Stokes' theorem,



                    $$oint_{partial Sigma} mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{l} = iint_Sigma nabla times mathbf{E}cdot dmathbf{S},~~~~~~$$



                    and the curl of $mathbf{E}$ is not zero everywhere on $Sigma$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 6 hours ago









                    GiorgioP

                    1,983217




                    1,983217










                    answered 11 hours ago









                    Javier

                    14.3k74482




                    14.3k74482























                        0














                        You are re-discovering the Aharonov-Bohm effect. it is not a problem of differential vs integral form of Maxwell equations, but the issue is that in order to prove equivalence between the local condition on vanishing curl and the global of vanishing of the line integral of the field is required a simply connected domain. Which is not the case if you have a toroidal solenoid (every closed loop around the solenoid cannot be contracted to a point).



                        For more information see a previous Q&A. In particular, among the first comments you'll find a reference to an experiment performed with a toroidal solenoid.






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          0














                          You are re-discovering the Aharonov-Bohm effect. it is not a problem of differential vs integral form of Maxwell equations, but the issue is that in order to prove equivalence between the local condition on vanishing curl and the global of vanishing of the line integral of the field is required a simply connected domain. Which is not the case if you have a toroidal solenoid (every closed loop around the solenoid cannot be contracted to a point).



                          For more information see a previous Q&A. In particular, among the first comments you'll find a reference to an experiment performed with a toroidal solenoid.






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            0












                            0








                            0






                            You are re-discovering the Aharonov-Bohm effect. it is not a problem of differential vs integral form of Maxwell equations, but the issue is that in order to prove equivalence between the local condition on vanishing curl and the global of vanishing of the line integral of the field is required a simply connected domain. Which is not the case if you have a toroidal solenoid (every closed loop around the solenoid cannot be contracted to a point).



                            For more information see a previous Q&A. In particular, among the first comments you'll find a reference to an experiment performed with a toroidal solenoid.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            You are re-discovering the Aharonov-Bohm effect. it is not a problem of differential vs integral form of Maxwell equations, but the issue is that in order to prove equivalence between the local condition on vanishing curl and the global of vanishing of the line integral of the field is required a simply connected domain. Which is not the case if you have a toroidal solenoid (every closed loop around the solenoid cannot be contracted to a point).



                            For more information see a previous Q&A. In particular, among the first comments you'll find a reference to an experiment performed with a toroidal solenoid.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 12 hours ago









                            GiorgioP

                            1,983217




                            1,983217























                                -1














                                Because you can get that magnetic field with infinitely long selenoid and that is an idealization. There are no magnetic charges, $nabla cdot B=0$ and magnetic field always forms closed lines.






                                share|cite|improve this answer


























                                  -1














                                  Because you can get that magnetic field with infinitely long selenoid and that is an idealization. There are no magnetic charges, $nabla cdot B=0$ and magnetic field always forms closed lines.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                                    -1












                                    -1








                                    -1






                                    Because you can get that magnetic field with infinitely long selenoid and that is an idealization. There are no magnetic charges, $nabla cdot B=0$ and magnetic field always forms closed lines.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    Because you can get that magnetic field with infinitely long selenoid and that is an idealization. There are no magnetic charges, $nabla cdot B=0$ and magnetic field always forms closed lines.







                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer










                                    answered 12 hours ago









                                    ahmetselcuk

                                    7814




                                    7814






























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                        Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                        Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451919%2fdifferent-predictions-from-differential-vs-integral-form-of-the-maxwell-faraday%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        CARDNET

                                        Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

                                        濃尾地震