Talk:Maxwell's equations

message: The article has the following quote:
"The differential and integral formulations of the equations are mathematically equivalent"
I do not believe this is correct because the integral formulation carries boundary conditions while the differential formulation doesn't. Any thoughts? --Frozenport (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever you solve partial differential equations involving space and/or time, you need corresponding boundary and/or initial conditions. And yes, the set of equations are mathematically equivalent, you get from the differential forms to the integral forms by the relevant vector calculus identities. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, equivalent in their shared domains of applicability. One can pick mathematical nits and say that there are cases where the integral formulation is defined and the differential formulation is not, where the fields are integrable but not differentiable (e.g. in the classical context when the charge and current is confined to a surface).  But this does not relate to the original question with regard to boundary conditions, only to a strict interpretation of general mathematical equivalence.  I am not advocating a change, though. —Quondum 16:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between differential and integral formulations? 

message: In the section ""Microscopic" versus "macroscopic"" E and B look like they are both "microscopic" and "macroscopic" fields. There is an averaging and therefore I think the last statement in "Auxiliary fields, polarization and magnetization" is not pertinent, or is misleading, or need an explanation on what it shows.Ludo987 (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: D and H are the macroscopic fields, which include permittivity and permeability of macroscopic objects. Fundamentally, it is the electrons in atoms that cause these effects. Gah4 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

text: It seems way more pertinent to emphasize first that this is vacuum vs matter then say matter formulation does not hold at microscopic level in matter while E B formulation does (which yeilds name macroscopic fields). The statement that formulation are equivalent should be removed either way. (basing purposed changes off of Zhangwill Modern Electrodynamics). Someone should let me know what they think. Ehaarer (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Microscopic" versus "macroscopic" 

message: In the sinusoidal case, special solution as it says, E and B are in phase. That is, they are both sinusoids with a constant ratio. But for other waveforms, it isn't so easy to define phase. Should the in phase comment apply only to sinusoids? Gah4 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For propagation in vacuum, phase is a useful concept in general, since we can analyze waves into sums of sinusoids. Another solution is for the circularly polarized wave which is the animated sinusoid, a spiral, shifting from E only and gradually transferring to B only, and back to E only, again in the picture. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The circular polarized case needs an Ex, Ey, Bx, By, which that diagram doesn't show.  Gah4 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning the range of the blue and red projections on the x & y axes are but half the story, I presume. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 18:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more, I don't know which half. First I thought it was Ex and By, but maybe Ex and Ey. I don't know how to make these diagrams, and maybe one with Ex, Ey, Bx, By would be too hard to understand when looking at it. Gah4 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Um, actually in circularly polarized light the spiral in the animation is just a single field, either E or B but not both. If it's E, then the animation shows it shifting from purely Ex to purely Ey and so on, so that the magnitude of E is constant. The magnitude of B is also constant and B is always at a right angle to E. If you only look at the field components along a single axis, then it looks E and B are out of phase. For example, looking along x we will see that when Ex is at a maximum (or minimum), Bx is zero, and visa versa. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But notice that the article animation has a red E and blue B, and that the caption here mentions E and B. Would it be too much to have a circularly polarized version, with rotating E and B?  (That is, not components of E and B, but the actual vector E and B in perspective?) But I don't know how to make one. Gah4 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancheta's caption of the animation is incorrect. The red and blue are not different field but are orthogonal components (red=y and blue=x) of the single field, either E or B. See also circular polarization and polarization (waves)#Polarization state (which has a correct caption for the animation). An equivalent animation with both E and B would look similar but would have a double-helix like structure rotating around the axis of propagation. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Conveniently, the caption doesn't actually say that one is E and the other B, but does seem to suggest it.  Yes, the double-helix is what I was thinking about. Gah4 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if the caption is incorrect. But what does the rotating arrow alternately red and blue signify to you? It seems that the blue and red projections alternately apply to the arrow...  --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm holding my fingers in the poynting vector S=ExH mnemonic we learned in school: right hand, forefinger poynting in the direction of propagation  forward S, thumb sticking upward E, middle finger projecting to the left H. I rotate my thumb to the right 90 deg , poynting finger still points forward, and now  the middle finger sticks  upward, replacing the direction formerly held by my thumb. Now I compare to the animation. The arrow seems to change color 4 times in one cycle at the corresponding changes of orientation of E and H. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 22:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked what the rotating arrow alternately red and blue signify to me - if this is describing the electric field for circular polarization, then how red the arrow is corresponds to the magnitude its y-axis projection at that instant, and how blue to its x-axis projection. Another way to describe this is that circular polarization is the superposition of horizontal and vertical polarizations with equal amplitude and a 90° phase delay between the two. The colors then correspond to the contribution of each polarization to the total E (red=vertical, blue=horizontal) at that instant in time. The result is that the E vector has a constant magnitude but changes direction in a rotary manner. H would show up as a second vector orthogonal to E and also of constant magnitude, which would also trace out a second helix so that each instance ExH would give you the correct Poynting vector and direction of propagation. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the reason why E and B have to be in phase ... otherwise the Poynting vector averages to zero.  We could have one with red E field, x and y components, blue B field, x and y components. That would match the article diagram for circular polarization. Gah4 (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed caption. Danke gut, as we say in Spanish German. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 09:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase 

message: That honor belongs to the  field according to (at least some of) my books. The field  is there the called the magnetic induction or the magnetic flow density. I thought that that order of business was the most common. YohanN7 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been extensive discussions on terminology, see talk:Magnetic field#Definition. The definition of H is given in this and other articles (e.g. Maxwell's equations #Constitutive relations), so if readers want to convert B to H, they can. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism for the ultimate reference. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  B is the magnetic field? 

message: It may be useful to discuss the derivation of Maxwell's equations from quantum mechanics. Some material on this topic is being gathered at: https://www.quora.com/Can-Maxwell%E2%80%99s-equations-be-derived-from-quantum-mechanics Including a paper at: http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/PhotonAPP.pdf  Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than describing the photon with a complex combination of E and B, it is more usual to describe the photon with the electromagnetic four-potential. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation from Quantum Mechanics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Maxwell's equations. 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/20081217035457/http://blazelabs.com/On%20Faraday%27s%20Lines%20of%20Force.pdf to http://blazelabs.com/On%20Faraday%27s%20Lines%20of%20Force.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030803151533/http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/~rfitzp/teaching/jk1/lectures/node6.html to http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/~rfitzp/teaching/jk1/lectures/node6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324084439/http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-02Electricity-and-MagnetismSpring2002/VideoAndCaptions/index.htm to http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-02Electricity-and-MagnetismSpring2002/VideoAndCaptions/index.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) 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it worth referring to an article suggesting an exception to the equations?
:Yes, but not here. There. YohanN7 (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth paragraph in the lead covers the "exceptions" (as you put it) decently. YohanN7 (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light-by-light scattering 

message: Besides those formulations given in this article, Maxwell's field equations can also be formulated in the same form as Dirac equation. Please refer to an article entitled FORMULATION OF MAXWELL FIELD EQUATIONS FROM A SYSTEM OF LINEAR FIRST ORDER PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS posted on ResearchGate by Vu B Ho for more details.101.189.62.166 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But see ResearchGate, which is criticized as a social networking site for those with institutional affiliations, and which lists predatory journals. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 09:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Might this paper be found on arXiv.org? 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxwell's field equations can be formulated in the form of Dirac equation 

message: In the "Differential forms" given under Alternative formulations, the differential "d" is set italic, making it look like a variable (such as diameter, distance, ...).  I strongly recommend that the convention be followed that all variables be set italic, and everything else (text, labels, and operators) be set roman, as has been done in Relativistic formulations.
—DIV (120.18.180.5 (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation for "d" in derivative 

message: Shouldn't the microscopic dipoles in the figure have opposite polarization (positive up, negative down)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.251.102.114 (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure is showing how the microscopic polarization aggregates to form the macroscopic effect of apparent surface charges. You are confusing that with how an externally imposed field might induce a polarization in the material (which is a different effect). JRSpriggs (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fig. in section "Bound charge and current" 

message: It is rare that a well-established article gets to this stage; there is a protocol, wp:BRD that editors adhere to, to stay out of trouble: Wp:3RR is the bright-line we cannot cross, as editors. So we need to discuss the changes on this talk page. Please post your points here if this message is not clear to you or if you need help. Otherwise ... --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 16:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, ! I've protected the page for a short while in the hope that everyone involved will engage in some discussion – which I'm relieved to see has already begun below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

text: @User talk: Co-scienza, Based from a reading of this diff there is a very clear implication, namely that there is an experimental outcome which could be observed astronomically. We need at least one citation for that implication (ie, a prediction of an experimental outcome [meaning not yet observed]). Failing that citation, I urge you to self-revert your edits, about which you clearly believe. But the article was stable before your edits, so there needs to be a justification for the newest changes. I can explain my reasoning if you like, but I am waiting for your good-faith response. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 15:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR

message: Re-reading " The topological condition is again that the second real cohomology group is trivial", I propose casting this sentence to be more congenial for physicists by rewording the usage "trivial" to "compatible with the definitions". Of course, the problem then shifts to providing evidence for the definitions.  -- 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to Hodge star 

message: Here are some resources: 
* NASA Video (May 20, 2013) Space Weather and Earth's Aurora -- This video from forskning.no —credits beginning at minute 4:27— depicts a solar storm event which show how some magnetic flux lines within the Sun's plasma can free themselves from the Sun's own weather, and propagate to Earth in an 18-hour journey, then funnel around Earth, converging at the polar regions of the atmosphere, manifesting as Aurora borealis at minute 3:45 in the video. Those of us in the northern US can sometimes view these silent atmospheric displays at night.
*: But if an event is severe enough, it can affect the power distribution grid.
*:See also  American Museum of Natural History (Mar 9, 2012) Science Bulletins: Space Weather—Storms from the Sun's plasma at minute 2:15 
*: NASA Video (May 17, 2013) Hidden Magnetic Portals Around Earth describes X-points, which pinpoint magnetic reconnections when/where solar magnetic flux lines merge with Earth's  magnetic flux lines in the magnetosphere. Minute 0:45 is already in the article.
*:--Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 04:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geomagnetic storm  

message: For years, I just assumed there would be an illustration for Gauss's law. Perhaps http://www.physics.udel.edu/~bnikolic/teaching/phys208/lectures/gauss_law.pdf is a possible start for picturing the calculation which is needed. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 12:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We have Wikipedia:Graphics Lab where illustrations can be requested (they're usually quite efficient), but you need to be specific on exactly what you want, the volunteers there do not necessarily have a technical understanding of the subject. SpinningSpark 16:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture for Gauss's law 

message: Under the "Key to the notation" heading B is labeled the magnetic field, however the curl of the electric field is the negative time differential of magnetic flux. This is easy to see through units:
Del cross E = V/m^2
dB/dt != A/ms
dB/dt = Tesla/s = V s/m^2 s = V/m^2
Bghagar (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For most people nowadays (physicists at least) B is the magnetic field, measured in tesla. See Feynman. Ponor (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The unit of B is tesla, yes.  What its name is is less clear.  Much of the world does not call it the magnetic field (strength).  In the SI, B is called the magnetic flux density, and H is called the magnetic field strength.  —Quondum 03:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid Wikipedia will be the last to admit that the magnetic flux (Field*Area) density (Field*Area/Area) is a silly name for B and that *everyone* (*relevant*) in physics calls B the magnetic field. Start from this lab where they produce some of the strongest fields... in tesla: nationalmaglab. Ponor (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Bghagar expressed a valid concern about something that appears to need correcting in the article: something that is confusing and contradictory to the way a large portion of the world uses the terminology.  An article's talk page is for discussing improvements to an article, not for advocating a particular perspective.  —Quondum 10:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Your implication is ironic.  An article such as this is aimed at a broader audience than particle and quantum physicists, and so adhering to the archaic Gaussian system and its associated terminology in WP is inappropriate.  References for modern, widely used and standardized terminology are easy to find, but resistance to using such in WP is a perennial problem: precisely the response (by who I regard as traditionalists) to which you refer.  —Quondum 14:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. Tesla is not a Gaussian system unit. I'd think US national lab people, EU magnetic field lab people, Japanese high field lab, Nature, MRI manufacturers know their fields. The prevalent name for B nowadays is "the magnetic field", and when we say "the magnetic field" we should assume it's the B-field. That's modern. The name "magnetic flux density" is old and is disappearing. That's why it's okay to call B the field, and say that the field is measured in tesla and not A/m. It's the H-field/magnetizing field/ that's measured in A/m. We can only continue this discussion if you provide references to the claim that "much of the world does not call B the magnetic field". So far I've seen none. Ponor (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are evidently unfamiliar with the SI, which defines the tesla, and also incidently gives the names for quantities such as these (read the 2019 SI Brochure: ; your "So far I've seen none" suggests that you are unaware of it).  Your claim that 'The name "magnetic flux density" is old and is disappearing is simply nonsense.  Public facing websites are not references for technical use.  —Quondum 15:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Bghagar, the full 'old' name for B is "magnetic flux density", but most people call it simply "the magnetic field". The Magnetic field article is confusing and inconsistent (check the bottom section where the strongest fields, and not flux densities are measured in tesla), but all attempts to fix it fail when people start fighting about the right names. My advice, when the field is measured in tesla, call it the B-field of just the magnetic field. When it is measured in A/m call it the H-field. The flux Φ of B through a small area S is B·S (bold is for vectors); using the old confusing terminology this would be the flux of the magnetic flux density. Ponor (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Bghagar, the article Magnetic field seems to be fairly clear about the variation of usage of terminology, including that the SI name for B is magnetic flux density and for H is magnetic field strength.  Characterizing usage more specifically by each context is too much, so I'm unclear what you are suggesting with respect to that article.  —Quondum 15:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The preamble defines magnetic field in units of A/m and magnetic flux density in terms of Tesla. A line there stating that both the magnetic field and the magnetic flux density may be referred to as "magnetic field" which Ponor initially pointed out might help. Bghagar (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The second paragraph of the lead starts with "In electromagnetics, the term "magnetic field" is used for two distinct but closely related vector fields denoted by the symbols  and ", which seems to me to be what you are asking for.  It then goes on to speak of  and  and their names in the SI context.  Perhaps this juxtaposition of switching from the general to more specific is what is confusing?  The situation is actually a bit more complex: there are several different contexts: SI quantities, Gaussian-CGS, and several more, all of which use the symbols  and  for corresponding but different quantities and with different units and varying names (e.g. in SI quantities and Gaussian-CGS, the "-field" refer to different quantities that are related by a constant factor).  The sentence that I have just quoted refers to this collection of contexts.  Unfortunately, the historical development has left us with a confusion of modern usages now, although as far as I am aware, only the SI conventions are endorsed by the major standards bodies.  In non-technical contexts, one is generally not unduly concerned about being precise or even cares about which of  and  are meant, and the term "magnetic field" is commonly used for either (maybe "magnetic flux density" is a bit of a mouthful for casual use?).  —Quondum 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have read that a dozen times, I'm blind and you are correct. Bghagar (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic Flux, not Field 

message: I would like to reword the following two sentences which are confusing:"The equations are particularly readable when length and time are measured in compatible units like seconds and lightseconds i.e. in units such that c = 1 unit of length/unit of time. Ever since 1983 (see International System of Units), metres and seconds are compatible except for historical legacy since by definition c = 299 792 458 m/s (≈ 1.0 feet/nanosecond)."
The SI Unit system is designed with the intent of coherence between units. I do not understand why meters and seconds are not compatible. Please add more details to what this means.
The SI Unit system uses the kilogram and not the gram as the base unit for coherence between mechanical units of mass, length, and time and electric physical quantities such as charge, current, resistance, inductance, and capacitance as related by Power=R*I^2=Mechanical Energy/time=Force*velocity.
ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement applies particularly to a specific section of the article, for those physicists who work in Gaussian units. For others who work in other branches of science or technology, Maxwell's equations do not include the factor of c (they use Maxwell's equations in the forms of the other sections). But even in the other sections, it is useful to remember that meters and seconds of System International are arbitrarily selected units, for convenience, dating back to the French Revolution. The units could just as well have been units of feet and nanoseconds, and the speed of light could have been proclaimed to be 1 foot per nanosecond, for ease of calculation and visualization of the flow of electrons in an electrical application. Not everyone works in Meters and Seconds. Some students are taught Dimensional analysis for this reason, to break free of arbitrary units in their thinking. It is true that when people from multiple disciplines work together, they have to take care that their work is translated to remove incompatibilities, a situation like the railroad gauges that vary from country to country. See also natural units. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 05:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Compatible Units of Meter and Second

message: I propose to revert the Nonlinear phenomena section and take it to a talk page. One part that bothers me includes the sentence "Linear relations are much more easy to model and understand than nonlinear models such as partial differential equations". Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations, so the quoted sentence does not follow. If the sentence is really about MHD, then we might use Magnetohydrodynamics#Geophysics as the target for discussion. One approach might be to model the fluids of MHD with the constitutive equations D=εE and B=μH, but treating permittivity ε and permeability μ as tensor quantities which interact with E and H. Then the Navier-Stokes equations, which can be used to describe the Sun's coronal plasma as the plasma would flow to Earth, would have to be simultaneously solved along with Maxwell's equations for D and B, or for charges and currents etc. on the MHD plasma.
If we were to model the reversals of Earth's magnetic field, as described in magnetohydrodynamics#Geophysics we might discuss the permittivity ε and permeability μ  of the plasma surrounding Earth's magnetic field. Similar discussions might also be had about the nonthermal radio filaments (NTFs) which surround the center of our Milky Way galaxy. 
The Navier-Stokes equations would need to be decoupled from a discussion of Maxwell's equations until any phenomenological aspects of MHD are disentangled from Maxwell's equations, such as the speed of magnetic reconnection (not currently explained from known models). 
My point is that this kind of discussion would belong on the MHD talk page, as it is an application of, not about Maxwell's equations per se. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 12:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with removing the section. Constant314 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Good faith contribution belongs on a talk page, as an adjunct to Constitutive_equation#Electromagnetism, showing up as an application of say, Magnetohydrodynamics#Geophysics, but not this article, at the current state of our collective understanding. We need a talk page location; which is yet To Be Determined. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 10:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), and Extension to nonlinear phenomena 

message: when I look at the article in dark mode on my phone half the equations are just black on black 89.27.237.58 (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  can read article in dark mode 

message: A recent edit removed a Hertz quote. I do believe it is an interesting quote that might go in the article.  I don't know where it should go, and especially don't know if it should go where it was removed.  In case anyone is interested: Gah4 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hertz's opinion is mildly interesting, but not notable.  It is shared by at least 100,000,000 people over history.  Did his proclamation of his opinion have anything to do with the acceptance of Maxwell's Equations?  Was it important? If so, who says it is important?  Was there a body of opposing opinions?  In the end, this quote is just a decoration that is unneeded in a concise encyclopedic article.  If I was writing a textbook about ME, I might include it, since I share the opinion.   It certainly doesn't need to clutter up the intro.  The intro is supposed to summarize the body.  If we had a section on the cultural impact of ME, maybe it could go there. Constant314 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote 

message: I just noticed Maxwell's equations is credited to Heaviside who developed vector physics. Heaviside took his ideas from Tait and Gibbs who he credits. Why then is Heaviside not noted for reactance.Electrical reactance  It credited that the french coined the term reactance, and the complex part was developed by Steinmetz from Heaviside's operational calculus. It seems that this disqualifies Heaviside's name in the article. But by that same note Heaviside should be disqualified from the Maxwell's equations article. I think people who are reading this and object should head over the the electrical reactance article. K00la1dx (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can hardly follow your logic.  There were different contributions from different people, and Heaviside was a primary person in expressing Maxwell's work in the form of vector calculus, thus producing what we call "Maxwell's equations".  In any event, it is not the role of Wikipedia to deal with matters of credit.  —Quondum 23:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Because the topic of Maxwell's equations includes a lot more than reactance.  Heaviside gets credit for boiling Me down to four variables from the previous 20 or so. Constant314 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Heaviside used Reactance to describe Maxwell... (Maxwell's equations and reactance go hand and hand) BTW Heaviside never got credit for Maxwell's equations. Just open up a physics textbook. It is not there K00la1dx (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactance 

message: Here an esoteric antisymmetrisation notation is used, that is not explained in the text (you have to follow a link). This introduces an ugly factor of 2 (actually 2!) into some equations and not others. Besides it makes the article less self contained. Just write F^{\mu\nu} = \partial^\mu A^\nu - \partial^\nu A^\mu etc.
An explicit form of the field tensor would make this article more self contained.
Aoosten (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativistic, Tensor calculus table