Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Series

Ampere law — the series

5 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. Four paths, one answer. The field of a straight wire carrying 10 A, summed step by step around four closed paths in 4000 pieces each. Three of them enclose the wire and each returns 12.566 µT·m, which is μ₀I; the fourth does not enclose it and returns zero, because the outward stretch of the path and the return stretch cross the same field lines in opposite senses. Nothing about the shape survives into the answer — not the radius, not the centring, not the corners — which is what makes the law usable and also what makes it useless without a symmetry to hand.

    The field that wraps a current

    Ampère's law says that going once round a closed path and adding up the field counts the current threaded through it, and nothing else about the path survives into the answer. Four different loops round one wire return the same number to five decimal places — which is exactly why the law is both easy and treacherous.

    part 1 · electromagnetism
  2. Every line that goes in has to come out. Field lines of a 5:1 solenoid in the plane through its axis, each traced by stepping along the local direction of a field summed turn by turn from Biot–Savart. Inside the winding they are parallel and evenly spaced, which is the picture the textbook argument is about. Outside they are not absent: they are spread over the whole of the rest of space, which is why the field there is small — 1.60e-2 of the centre value at 2 radii off the axis — and why it cannot be zero. A line has no end, so every one of the lines through the bore returns outside, and a field with no outside would be a field whose lines stop.

    The field outside the solenoid, which is not zero

    Ampère's law says the field outside a solenoid vanishes, and every step of that argument is exact — for a winding of infinite length. A real one is a bar magnet seen from outside, its external field falls as the inverse square of its length rather than to nothing, and the "exactly zero" that makes the derivation so satisfying is the one part of it a laboratory cannot have.

    part 2 · electromagnetism
  3. How much of the answer a finite wire gives back. The field beside a straight segment of wire, divided by what the infinite-wire formula would give, against the length of the segment in units of the distance to the field point, on a logarithmic horizontal axis. The field is integrated element by element along the segment rather than evaluated from a closed form. A wire ten times as long as the distance already gives 92.8 per cent of the infinite answer, and one as long as the distance gives 45 — which is the practical content, and the reason the infinite-wire result is used for laboratory wires without apology. The second column is the part that matters for the law rather than for the number. The circulation of this field round a circle of radius d is not μ₀I; it falls short by exactly the fraction the segment fails to subtend. What makes up the difference is the displacement current of the charge piling up at the segment's two ends, and the two terms, both integrated here, sum to μ₀I to within 2.2e-8 per cent at every length. So Ampère's law is not approximately true for an open circuit and exactly true for a closed one — it is exactly true always, and it is a computation only when symmetry supplies the direction and the magnitude along the loop. Symmetry is doing the work; the law is doing the bookkeeping.

    The law that is always true and rarely useful

    Ampère's law holds for every loop and every current. Apply it to a wire of finite length and it gives an answer that is wrong by half — until the displacement current of the charge piling up at the wire's two ends is put back in, whereupon the two terms sum to μ₀I exactly at every length. The law was never approximate. It was never a computation either.

    part 3 · electromagnetism
  4. Two fields of the same magnet, and inside they point opposite ways. A uniformly magnetised sphere, with the field lines of B on the left and of H on the right, both computed from the exact solution — uniform inside, a dipole outside. Outside the sphere the two pictures are identical up to a constant, because there B is μ₀ times H and nothing else. Inside they are opposite: B is 0.67 tesla pointing along the magnetisation and H is 267 kiloamps a metre pointing against it. The B lines close on themselves and never end; the H lines begin on the top face and end on the bottom, which is what a field with sources looks like. Nothing about the magnet changed between the two panels — only which currents the circulation is allowed to count.

    The field that points against the magnet it is in

    There are two magnetic fields in use and the difference between them is which currents a loop is allowed to count. The consequence nobody expects on being told the definitions: inside a permanent magnet H points the other way from B. It has to — a loop inside the magnet threads no wire, so its H circulation is zero, and the only arrangement left has H running backwards.

    part 4 · electromagnetism
  5. A potential that is lower every time round. The magnetic scalar potential along a path circling a wire carrying 10 amps, against the angle turned through, for 2 complete circuits. Away from the wire the magnetic field has no circulation round any small loop, so it is the gradient of something — and it is, except that the something does not come back to its own value. Each circuit lowers it by exactly the current, 10 amps, and a second circuit lowers it by 10 again. The potential is perfectly good locally and has no single value globally, and the amount by which it fails to close is the current threaded. So nothing has been lost in going from a circulation to a potential: Ampère's law has been rewritten as a statement about the shape of the region the potential lives in.

    A potential that does not come back to itself

    Where no current flows, the magnetic field has no circulation round any small loop, so it is the gradient of something and a magnetic problem becomes an electrostatic one. The catch is not that the potential fails to exist. It is that walking once round a wire lowers it by the current, and walking round again lowers it by the current again — so Ampère's law survives the translation as a statement about what the path encircles rather than about where it went.

    part 5 · electromagnetism

All series