Talk:Electromagnetism

message: Is having a distracting animation of lightning at the top of this page appropriate for electromagnetism? that animation would be better on the lighting article and certainly not at the top of any page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.51.109 (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've cut the two images entirely; I don't think the reader really benefits in their understanding of electromagnetism by being shown what a magnet and some lightning look like. --McGeddon (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Animation of lightning at top of page

message: Intro fails to clearly describe what the relationship between electricity and magnetism is.
Article fails to clearly describe how much magnetic force is generated from a known quantity of electricity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.91.233 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  0 / 10 

message: I was wondering since people like Tesla and troy reed made electro-magnetic vehicles, and I did recently to add a small section on its historical accuracy.  TBh, there are a few dozen inventers.  Electro-magnetic car inventors are actually in yildiz, troy reed, wasif kahloon, tesla are a few of them. They work with plasma or a highly advanced form of hho (a battery system) with electromagnetic induction motors even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventors

message: One of the design's problems has been antennas in the circuits. However, a team of researchers in university of Cambridge have invented a new way and is to integrate the antenna on the chip. last frontier of semiconductor design would be a massive leap forward for wireless communications.
Read more here:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-electromagnetism-enable-antennas-chip.html
MansourJE (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unraveling a design problem 

message: Is zero negative or positive? Sandeepsiddu01 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your question is not relevant to electromagnetism. Try asking at Talk:Zero. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Better still, since this question is not about improving an article, you could try Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  about zero 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electromagnetism. 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/20130530200951/http://ppp.unipv.it/Collana/Pages/Libri/Saggi/Nuova%20Voltiana3_PDF/cap4/4.pdf to http://ppp.unipv.it/collana/pages/libri/saggi/nuova%20voltiana3_pdf/cap4/4.pdf
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) 22:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wikipedia says:
"The electromagnetic force is responsible for practically all phenomena one encounters in daily life above the nuclear scale, with the exception of gravity. The electromagnetic force is also involved in all forms of chemical phenomena".
If I sit in a phycics or chemistry class, and watch my teacher do some physics and chemistry demonstrations, are 100% of them explained by electomagnetic force & gravity? (At high school or university).
You can assume my teacher does not own a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator.
If there are important exceptions, please tell.
--ee1518 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Feynman in his book QED says that the electromagnetic force is responsible for all everyday phenomena except gravity and radioactivity.  Radioactivity is caused by nuclear forces, so the Wikipedia statement is correct, but I would have stated it as Feynman stated it.  If you have and old watch with radium coated numerals, the glowing in the dark would be due to radioactivity. Also, the sun is powered by radioactive processes.  Constant314 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Does your chemistry teacher have a set of radioactive Fiestaware? Mine did! XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly all physical and chemical things are explained by electromagnetism & gravity? 

message: Since I can edit: the text of the Pauli exclusion principle in the section on fundamental forces is linked to the article about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, not to the article about the Pauli exclusion principle. As I assume this is wrong maybe some of the priviledged editors can correct this link.2601:280:4B00:590D:49DD:4267:E71:58E6 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are asking, but if you want to suggest an edit to Pauli exclusion principle then you need to make the suggestion on the talk page of that article.  If you want to suggest an edit on this article, then you need to be more explicit.  It is not helpful to just say that some part of the article needs to be edited.Constant314 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

text: It's done. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: I've noticed that we have two articles with very similar title and content: electromagnetism and classical electromagnetism. Neither is in a good state, even though they are rather important articles: electromagnetism has about 30k views per month! I wonder if merging the articles could help concentrating effort into improving them?
I assume electromagnetism is supposed to cover more than just classical electromagnetism, but it doesn't do it. Quantum electrodynamics is not even mentioned! Tercer (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Classical electromagnetism]]? 

message: Sorry I'm new so I don't know how to format very well.
In the page it says:
"While preparing for an evening lecture on 21 April 1820, Hans Christian Ørsted made a surprising observation. As he was setting up his materials, he noticed a compass needle deflected away from magnetic north when the electric current from the battery he was using was switched on and off. This deflection convinced him that magnetic fields radiate from all sides of a wire carrying an electric current, just as light and heat do, and that it confirmed a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism."
If you look at Hans Christian Ørsted, it says that this is a myth, and that Hans discovered it on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal8205 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for calling attention to that. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Myth" put in page as fact 

message: At high energy the weak force and electromagnetic force are unified as a single electroweak force. to At high energy, the weak force and electromagnetic force are unified as a single electroweak force. (missing a comma)108.46.173.109 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request 

message: An inline citation for At high energy the weak force and electromagnetic force are unified as a single electroweak force. Is this a sentence that needs an inline citation?
If so, I am requesting an inline citation for this sentence.
ScientistBuilder (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request

message: I have added several sources with inline citations.
I am working on removing the template message.
ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Electromagentism Template Message

message: I want to remove or merge and move the section on magnetohydrodynamics section. The section should be expanded or become a subsection in another section for better organization. ScientistBuilder (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or Move MagnetoHydrodynamics and Nonlinear Phenomenon Section 

message: Electricity and Magnetism (College Level) pretty clearly duplicates the scope of Electromagnetism and should be selectively merged to the latter. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Electricity and Magnetism (College Level)]] into [[Electromagnetism]] 

message: please change "exert accelerate other charged particles" to "exert acceleration on other charged particles" Abnormalful (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023 

message: I want to edit the part where electromagnetism is compared to the other four fundamental forces, as I fear that it is quite ambiguous in explaining that only the gravitational force is the other force operating at infinite range, and my edit will clarify this ambiguity.It is a minor edit adding only that one point.The text that will be added is-
The only other fundamental force apart from electromagnetism which operates at an infinite range is the gravitational force. SriCHaM (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Constant314 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on confusion with the infinite range section-MINOR EDIT 

message: Of particles or particles streams? Streams of particles can also perform elecromagnetism, as well as electric fields. --195.24.52.66 (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on topics 

message: In the first paragraph of the article, 5th sentence "Electromagnetic forces occur between any two charged particles, causing an attraction between particles with opposite charges and repulsion between particles with the same charge, while magnetism is an interaction that occurs exclusively between charged particles in relative motion.", the first word ("Electromagnetic") should not be instead "Electrostatic"? Andreimihai56 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I changed the sentence but not quite in the way suggested. Coulomb forces work on moving charges so we can't simply substitute "electrostatic" here. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024