# Re: adding Lenz's law

*From*: "BJACOBY@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <benj@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:25:26 -0500

On 2/3/2012 4:43 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

On 2/3/2012 9:59 AM, BJACOBY@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

For it to do so would require "action at a

distance" to be true.

Yes, If you have to use the integrated B over an area

to derive E over a loop, and all at the same time, then

this is a valid argument. But the "B causes E" part

is meant to occur in dE/dt = rot(B), not in Faraday's

law.

So you are saying if I have some relation between two quantities in the form of an equation. And then I integrate both sides of that equation to form a second equation, that it follows that in in one equation one side "causes" the other while in the second case it does not? Yet both describe the SAME physical phenomena?

Local space derivatives of one field are supposed to

cause local time derivatives of the other field. And

then your argument is not valid. (So nothing is proved,

the question simply is still not settled!)

I'm not sure what "supposed to cause" means. But as even Maxwell notes, being able to calculate one from the other is not the same thing as one causing the other. This is especially true for the temporal derivatives where limits must always be taken from the past toward t = 0 to even have a chance of being causal.

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: adding Lenz's law***From:*Jos Bergervoet

**References**:**Re: adding Lenz's law***From:*p . kinsler

**Re: adding Lenz's law***From:*Jos Bergervoet

**Re: adding Lenz's law***From:*BJACOBY@xxxxxxxxxxxx

**Re: adding Lenz's law***From:*Jos Bergervoet

- Prev by Date:
**Re: adding Lenz's law** - Next by Date:
**Re: adding Lenz's law** - Previous by thread:
**Re: adding Lenz's law** - Next by thread:
**Re: adding Lenz's law** - Index(es):