Talk:Electric charge: Difference between revisions
imported>Anthony.Sebastian |
imported>John R. Brews (→Definition of electric charge: Two types of charge) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
A problem with the present definition is that it seems to apply equally to magnetism, an issue Gilbert identified and tried to explain away. I don't understand Gilbert's way to distinguish between them, but something is needed. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | A problem with the present definition is that it seems to apply equally to magnetism, an issue Gilbert identified and tried to explain away. I don't understand Gilbert's way to distinguish between them, but something is needed. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
The point is perhaps clearer if one looks at [http://books.google.com/books?id=fc2oTUfidvgC&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=magnetic+inverse+square+law&hl=en&ei=MtwwTtaXK-TKiAKY9e2sBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=magnetic%20inverse%20square%20law&f=false a discussion of the inverse square law], which is the same for both magnetic and electric charges. It appears that some additional phenomenon has to be introduced to cause recognition of two distinct types of charge. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 03:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:54, 27 July 2011
Start of Electric charge
In the Electricity article, electricity is defined in terms of electric charge, and electric charge is wiki-linked. Therefore, article on electric charge needed. Hope others will contribute, especially physicists, chemists, and historians of science. —Anthony.Sebastian 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Coinage of electric, electrical
A number of sources attribute the coining of the word "electric" as referring to electrical phenomena to William Gilbert. For example, Weinberg. A more elaborate discussion is given in Wikipedia where a distinction is made between the introduction of electricus by Gilbert in his Latin text, and the use of electric in English by Francis Bacon. That is also the approach of the online etymology dictionary. It appears from Anthony's text that the Webster's Third New International Dictionary has an attribution for electric that pre-dates Gilbert. I can't access this link, so I don't know just what Webster's dictionary means. How is this to be handled here? John R. Brews 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, March 2008; online version June 2011, under the entry ‘electric’, states “apparently earliest in W. Gilbert De magnete (1600)”, and also states “compare slightly earlier ‘electrical’.
- Of course, Gilbert wrote in Latin, and if he actually used the word 'electric' it certainly wasn't the first Latin work in which 'electric' was used, as a Google Books search for 'electric' in books before 1600 reveals.
- Re Wikipedia: I note the following first two quotes for 'electric' in the OED:
- a1626 F. Bacon Physiol. Remains in Baconiana (1679) 149 Crystal, Lapis Specularis, Glass, and other such Electric Bodies, if burnt, or scorch'd, draw not.
- 1646 Sir T. Browne Pseudodoxia Epidemica ii. iv. 78 By Electrick bodies, I conceive‥such as conveniently placed unto their objects attract all bodies palpable.
- Re 'a1626' for F Bacon: The OED says "The date of publication is placed at the head of each quotation. For older texts, especially for those dating from before the invention of printing, this date may be a manuscript date or the date at which the text is thought to have been composed. In the case of posthumously published books, the date normally given is that of the author's death (preceded by a = 'ante')." Anthony.Sebastian 03:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Somewhat confusing, eh? Anthony.Sebastian 03:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Anthony: I'd say so. I guess one can nit pick over it, but I'd suggest the approach you outline: indicate that in Latin words were coined that resembled the Greek for "amber" and these were made common following their usage in Latin by Gilbert, and subsequently were taken over into English in the forms "electric", "electron", "electrical". Would you agree to phrase this somehow in the article? John R. Brews 03:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Will do, John. May take a few days to get to it. Thanks for stimulating the re-think. More sections also aborning. Anthony.Sebastian 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Definition of electric charge
A problem with the present definition is that it seems to apply equally to magnetism, an issue Gilbert identified and tried to explain away. I don't understand Gilbert's way to distinguish between them, but something is needed. John R. Brews 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The point is perhaps clearer if one looks at a discussion of the inverse square law, which is the same for both magnetic and electric charges. It appears that some additional phenomenon has to be introduced to cause recognition of two distinct types of charge. John R. Brews 03:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Physics Developing Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Chemistry Developing Articles
- Chemistry Nonstub Articles
- Chemistry Internal Articles
- History Developing Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Physics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Chemistry Underlinked Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- History tag