In Fig. 17.4 the uniform magnetic field is pictured
as a forest of little parallel arrows of equal length, equally spaced.
Something like this is always necessary if we want to make a visual
representation of ,
but it leaves a lot to be desired.
For instance, a uniform magnetic field has the same magnitude and
direction at every point in space, not just where the lines
are drawn. Moreover, as we have seen, the magnetic force,
if any, is never in the direction of the ``lines of
''
but rather perpendicular to them, as shown in Fig. 17.4.
Nevertheless, the visual appeal of such a graphical representation
in terms of ``field lines'' is so compelling that a whole description
of &
has been developed in terms of them. In that description
one speaks of ``lines per unit area'' as a measure of the strength
of an electric or magnetic field. The analogy is with hydrodynamics,
the flow of incompressible fluids, in which we may actually see
``lines'' of fluid flow if we drop packets of dye in the water.
In fluid dynamics there is actually ``stuff'' flowing, a transfer of
mass that has momentum and density. In that context one naturally
thinks of the FLUX of material through imaginary surfaces
perpendicular to the flow17.8
and indeed
is sometimes referred to as the
magnetic flux per unit (perpendicular) area.
By the same token, if ``lines'' of
pass through a
surface of area A normal (perpendicular) to
,
then we can (and do) talk about the MAGNETIC FLUX
through the surface;
has units of magnetic field times area.
If we want, we can turn this around and say that a magnetic field
has units of flux per unit area.
Even though we rarely take this ``lines of '' business
literally, it makes such a good image that we make constant use
of it in handwaving arguments. Moreover, the concept of
MAGNETIC FLUX is well ensconced in modern
&
terminology.