Talk:Electric field

Coulomb's law equation

The equation of Coulomb's law in this page differs from the one in the Coulomb's law page under the vector form section, first paragraphs, in that here the Euclidean norm of the vectorial distance is not taken before squaring it. I also think the notation in the Coulomb's law page is better in that the unit vector is written as the unit vector of the vectorial distance, while here different letters are used for the positions and the unit vector which makes them seem unrelated. Using the same notation for a certain equation across all wikipedia pages seems the way to go to me; it results in more clarity. I'd like some opinions about this as I dislike making changes without a consensus. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. The vector equations in this article are incorrect because $x_{2}-x_{1}$ is a vector and ${(x_{2}-x_{1})}^{2}$ is ambiguous at best. All the instances in this article need to be fixed. Mixing x with r also adds needless complexity. I do not have a preference between x or r but I do prefer $r_{21}$ over $r_{2,1}$. Constant314 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I need a good lesson on formatting (which I can't take now) before I even begin to change anything on wikipedia. So if you know how to make the changes it is faster if you do it. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait a little longer to see if anyone else has an opinion. As for learning formatting, just go to your sandbox and experiment. Constant314 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Got it, it's just I won't have time these days (exams) TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is better not to change letters. I prefer the removal of the coma as well (I also like when vectors have some kind of arrow symbol as a ideal formal documentation style) Bill field pulse (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess I should have indicated that those changes have been completed. We don't generally put arrows above vectors. The reliable sources have gotten away from that. This article uses bold for vectors. Constant314 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Even though the arrows are clearer, when lots of vectors are being noted the arrows and comas are extra work. If readers familiarize with the latest conventions they should understand.

Should we ask ourselves "Is the goal to help less knowledgeable readers keep up (clarity) or to advance the subject matter (easy writing style)?" Clarity would be my pick despite my being a lazy writer, and a novice here. Bill field pulse (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

$$\mathbf {F} =q\mathbf {E} +q\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B}$$

$${\overrightarrow {F}}=q{\overrightarrow {E}}+q{\overrightarrow {v}}\times {\overrightarrow {B}}$$

$${\overrightarrow {\mathbf {F} }}=q{\overrightarrow {\mathbf {E} }}+q{\overrightarrow {\mathbf {v} }}\times {\overrightarrow {\mathbf {B} }}$$

I would oppose arrows for the following reasons:

• Conformance with other technical articles.
• Vectors and matrices are often intermixed.
• None of the examples in the math manual of style (MOS:MATH) use arrows, although they are not forbidden.
• Possible rendering problems on small screens.

The manual style emphasizes that symbols should be defined. I think that would take care of any confusion. Constant314 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely right the bold face is clear and obvious. The arrows are messy. A well chosen clearly bold face like that is better for all. Thank you for your attention to this. It is much appreciated and helps my understanding. Bill field pulse (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Electric field difinition issue

I make difinition of electric field more technical, according to you less technical difinition is preferred because it is easy to understand, you are correct but in long run and in case of understanding theory soo deeply these less technical difinition bring a lot of confusion . Let's clearify it with a example, according to your preferred definition(less technical difinition) electric field is a physical field which surround an electrically charged particle ,here reader can be confuse that electric field only surround particle and it will take some time for them to understand that it surround any electric charge no matter if it a particle or not most of learner take a lot of time to understand it and that time can be save if we use word electric charge insted of electrically charge particle.

CONCLUSION — LESS TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS ARE EASY TO UNDERSTAND BUT MAKE THINGS CONFUSING AND DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND IN DEPTH. AryanpateI (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

All electric charge exists in the form of charged particles. “Charge density” which appears in Maxwell’s equations is an approximation which breaks down at small scales.

At even smaller (atomic) scales, the Uncertainty Principle makes a particle’s charge smear out, appearing as an actual space charge density. This is the origin of atomic and molecular orbitals. However if the charge of a portion of space is measured, it is always found to be quantized, concentrated at one or more points as particles.

I think it is good for general readers to understand that charge comes in the form of particles, so I support use of the term “charged particles”

--Chetvorno^TALK 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Charge is a property of some particles and not abstract stuff. I do not oppose having a couple of sentences explaining that in classical E&M that charge may be treated as continuous abstract stuff. Constant314 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see the best mix of good math and good language both as attempts to explain the underlying reality. I like including something like "the the electric field is a part of the physical change to space that occurs due to the presence of a charge. Charges are field creators. When a charge arrives at a point in space time. This field starts at the charge, positive or negative, and moves out from the charges in all directions." Bill field pulse (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)