* “The force between two charges q,Q is proportional [to] the inverse square distance r between them.” * “In the previous section we defined [e]lectric field of point charges. To get the electric [field] of a continuous charge distribution you turn the charge q into a charge density dq and integrate the electric field [over?] the charge density.” * “Elect[r]ic field lines start at positive charges (or infinity) and terminate at negati[v]e charges (or infinity). The flux through a close[d] surface is therefore a measure of the total charge inside. T[h]is is called Gauss’s law.” * “Electric fields are vector fields. It would be better if instead of a three-dimensional value at every point we have a single scal[a]r value instead.” * “The electric potential is the integral of the electric field. The electric potential uniquely determines the electric field. The electric field determines the electric [potential] up to a constant.” * “Note that the energy of an electric field [does] not obey the superposition principle. If you double the electric field you quadruple the energy density.”
I put in all the ones I found, but most of them are not consequential. However, several of them could be fairly confusing: “charge” instead of “field”, “closer” instead of “closed”, “field” instead of “potential”.
An apparent bug in the LW comment editor prevented me from continuing that comment, simply eating the comment if I typed any more, so I will continue in a reply:
I think overall this post would be hard to follow for someone who didn’t already know much of what was in it. This might be less true for people with a stronger calculus background than I have; I mostly have to work out the calculus bits by going backwards from the physics bits.
Typos:
* “The force between two charges q,Q is proportional [to] the inverse square distance r between them.”
* “In the previous section we defined [e]lectric field of point charges. To get the electric [field] of a continuous charge distribution you turn the charge q into a charge density dq and integrate the electric field [over?] the charge density.”
* “Elect[r]ic field lines start at positive charges (or infinity) and terminate at negati[v]e charges (or infinity). The flux through a close[d] surface is therefore a measure of the total charge inside. T[h]is is called Gauss’s law.”
* “Electric fields are vector fields. It would be better if instead of a three-dimensional value at every point we have a single scal[a]r value instead.”
* “The electric potential is the integral of the electric field. The electric potential uniquely determines the electric field. The electric field determines the electric [potential] up to a constant.”
* “Note that the energy of an electric field [does] not obey the superposition principle. If you double the electric field you quadruple the energy density.”
I put in all the ones I found, but most of them are not consequential. However, several of them could be fairly confusing: “charge” instead of “field”, “closer” instead of “closed”, “field” instead of “potential”.
Thanks. I forgot to spellcheck this post before posting it. I fixed the other spellings that aren’t words.
An apparent bug in the LW comment editor prevented me from continuing that comment, simply eating the comment if I typed any more, so I will continue in a reply:
I think overall this post would be hard to follow for someone who didn’t already know much of what was in it. This might be less true for people with a stronger calculus background than I have; I mostly have to work out the calculus bits by going backwards from the physics bits.