Talk:A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field

message: Correct errors and insert conversions, thanks; make a note below equation if this is done. JDR 05:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  math translation 

message: The list doesn't include div B = 0. Is that an error, or did Maxwell actually not include it in his paper?--75.83.140.254 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an error.  Maxwell didn't need to include it, because it is implied by the \mathbf{B} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A} equation.  (The divergence of a curl is zero.) —Steven G. Johnson 21:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no div B equation? 

message: Equation (G), Gauss's Law should probably have del . D = rho, not del . D = - rho. Right? As in Gauss's_law. Common sense as well, because electric field radiates out from a positive charge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.38.191 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. — Gavin R Putland (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in article? 

message: There was a request to improve the translation above from 6 years ago and a rather arrogant reply. In reviewing the mathematical formula I notice a number of deficiencies in the definitions e.g. Upside-down triangle Nabla_symbol is not defined, neither is the epsilon, and there are a couple of other deficiencies. I notice that the previous requester did not specify the deficiencies in the symbolic key/legend. So now these are specified and please correct them. I noticed from the sources of the mathematical papers that the equations are different. It is up to the person who substitute the symbolism to define the symbols that he is using completely (less the widely known symbols like +, -, /, . . . .  . --PB666 yap 15:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Improve "translation"

message: The Royal Society has records of the timeline between the paper being read on 8 December 1664 and its publication in 1865 in its register of papers, including original correspondence. Perhaps notable is that it was peer-reviewed by William Thomson, later Lord Kelvin, and George Gabriel Stokes. It was approved for publication, according with the Society's statutes on such matters, by the committee of papers on 15 June 1865, and sent to the printer the day after. While Philosophical Transactions was only published annually in 1865 (in time for the Society's anniversary day, so some time in later November), offprints, which were given to the author for personal use and usually distributed by them to their peers, would have appeared shortly after this date. 16 June 1865 would seem to be the date from which the paper would be widely distributed. I'm happy to add this info if others think it is relevant. (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Publishing Details

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110194643/http://www.d3.dion.ne.jp/~kiyohisa/tieca/251.htm to http://www.d3.dion.ne.jp/~kiyohisa/tieca/251.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is there a long section called "Heaviside's equations" in this article, which is supposed to be about Maxwell's 1864 paper?  Maybe the idea is that Heaviside "vectorized" Maxwell's equations, and that equations (A)-(G) are modern versions of Maxwell's original 20 equations, some being vectorized.  But calling them "Heaviside's equations" is confusing to people who want to find Maxwell's equations, especially since the article seems to say Heaviside did not write these equations (A)-(G):
: Heaviside's versions of Maxwell's equations are distinct by virtue of the fact that they are written in modern vector notation. They actually only contain one of the original eight—equation "G" (Gauss's Law). Another of Heaviside's four equations is an amalgamation of Maxwell's law of total currents (equation "A") with Ampère's circuital law (equation "C"). 
All in all, the way the article is written makes it difficult to sort out what are Maxwell's equations and what is Heaviside's later work.  I think this article should clarify Maxwell's paper "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" and other articles should explain the history of modern work on electromagnetism by Heaviside and others.  John Baez (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have more about Maxwell's actual paper?