Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:41 AM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: B and electric charge
Thanks for good questions, Jack. I have no objection to what
you wrote (se the end of this message). But I would not say a
"standard charge"; any arbitrary charge, or a distribution of
charges, can be used to verify that two point-like charges are
equal. I will be away for a week. Perhaps the debate on the
sequence of electric concepts (in the first physics course) will
continue when the semester starts.
What I would like to discuss is the definition of B. Why do
we define it in terms of the EFFECT of the magnetic field
and not in terms of what CAUSES it? Instead of introducing
B via the Lorentz law (directly or indirectly) we can introduce
it via the Bio Savart law. Which way is pedagogically more
desirable and why? I have no opinion so far.
I also think that Chris Horton's idea of "circuits before
electrostatics" (see below) is worth debating. I think that a
minimum of electrostatics is necessary before circuits but
not everything we cover under this part of the course. In
other words, start with a minimum, introduce circuits and
return to both fields at the end.
Ludwik Kowalski