• photo_2020-08-01_00-27-57.jpg



    B . As originally formulated by Ampere, no it’s not always valid - it fails in the presence of dielectrics, because an electric field acting on a dielectric pulls the electrons and nuclei in opposite directions leading to polarization, and a changing electric field causes a changing polarization which is tantamount to a current that is not included in Ampere’s tally of currents. Maxwell had to patch Ampere’s version by adding , but with that fix in place we believe that it’s universally valid, give or take quantum corrections at high frequency or very small distances. It’s certainly a whole level more correct than Coulomb’s law, which is only exact in the case of a charge that’s been stationary or moving uniformly for all past time.

    E . The magnetic force acts in such a way that the direction of the magnetic force and velocity are always perpendicular to each other. If force and velocity are perpendicular force and displacement are also perpendicular, thus W= FS cos q, if q = 90, work done will be zero

    C. Specifically, the induced electric field is nonconservative because it does net work in moving a charge over a closed path, whereas the electrostatic field is conservative and does no net work over a closed path. Hence, electric potential can be associated with the electrostatic field, but not with the induced field.

  • @Yash-Kapoor

    IN B u told it fails in case of dielectrics but that is diff case na
    here they are claiming it fails in case of unsteady currents( current varying with time)
    but claim is wrong na as in this case amperes law holds

    so statement B shud be wrong na

Log in to reply

Powered by dubbtr | @2020