What happened to this representation of the electric field?

Alright, I think I understand your question and I can elaborate. However, I would like to first ask, what is your math/physics background? It seems that you haven't taken a course of vector calculus or electromagnetics. I would like to know how in depth with the mathematical elaboration before I go into detail.

I don't really care about the maths behind it.
I'm just interested in how we got from the OP to this.

But if you think the maths could help an understanding, it'd be happy to read on what little I know about vector math and calculus.

The picture you just posted is the exact same as the OP. The OP image simply draws the lines of constant Voltage (equipotential lines) as well.

It is not possible to understand electromagnetics without vector calculus (also called multivariable calculus). It may be interesting to think about, but I can guarantee that you will not understand it without the math. To illustrate why this is the case, I really only need to say that electromagnetics was a huge mystery in physics until James Maxwell published his work essentially stating that vector calculus perfectly describes everything there is to electromagenetics.

In a loose sense, I will try to describe how those two images are not even vaguely different.

Suppose we have a function which maps from a point in space to a scalar value. Say this function is continuous and smooth everywhere. This function is called a potential function. Voltage and Gravitational potential energy are both examples of potential functions. If we consider the derivative of this function, we get a vector valued mapping. That is, a mapping from points in space to a particular vector. Taking the negative of this derivative is called the electric field of the voltage. For gravity it is called the gravitational force field. Electric field points from high voltage to low voltage. Close to a proton, the voltage is high. Close to an electron, voltage is low. Field lines point along the direction of the electric field. Due to the nature of the relationship between a potential map and its derivative, the field lines are always orthogonal to the potential lines. The proof requires applications of the dot product along an arbitrary field line and potential line.

By the explanations above, those two images are not different. The 1st pic shows the potential and field and potential lines, but neglects the charge (the field is essentially the same but we swap the charges.) Pic 2 includes charge and neglects the potential and shows the charges

No we're saying there are two different fields interlaced.
Like this example The lines of force are present over a single conductor in this image.

technically yes? voltage and electric field share a derivative relationship, so they aren't really different. Just a different way of expressing the same information. Think about it mathematically, if we know all the field lines, then we also know all lines perpendicular to the field. that's all these diagrams show.

I mean, this is just the kind of stuff you learn in an intro EM course in high school or college.

Take the gradient of the surface that is defined by the equipotentials in your image and you get the more familiar representation you have today

The point I'm trying to make is that older texts reference two literal fields that comprise the electric field.
We have a magnetic field and a dielectric field, and both of these form the electrical field, so say these texts at the turn of the century.

Then we have to all reach a point of understanding as to what voltage is.

Would you mind elaborating?
Would doing so eliminate one of the fields?

>I just don't know which lines you are referring to as the magnetic field.
the ones marked with Φ depict magnetic, magnetic field lines are always depicted by loops around the source and electric fields are depicted by lines connecting sources or radiating from sources.
thank you, I understand what you are saying.
However your view of a static dipole field is misleading. It does not exist except in theory. In reality the movement of electrons in the dipole only stops instantaneously, thus that infinitesimally small period of time where electron movement is zero and magnetic field strength drops to zero is not something that actually happens in any real sensible fashion. It is only in the mathematical and theoretical sense that it happens.

That is a static dipole so nothing happened to it. It is static.

>That is a static dipole
it clearly shows magnetic field lines
magnetic field lines imply moving charges
Why do you say that OPs diagram depicts a static dipole?

Because he's schizophrenic.

What difference does it make?
The field isn't static either way.

OP said he was posting the electric field so I assumed the darker lines were lines of constant potential. See how one of the darker lines is labelled with phi? That usually indicates potential.

>not static
What makes you say that?
uvm.edu/~cems/keoughst/LectureNotes141/Topic_09_(ElectrostaticMultipoles).pdf

equipotentials = lines show equal electrostatic force?
>mfw electrostatics are a bit different than EM
In OPs diagram the lines marked with phi are what I'm used to seeing as magnetic field lines, the lines marked with psi are electrostatic field lines.
but I guess that might be the difference between electrostatics and electrodynamics.

Somebody posted in on 4cahn, and it lost all credibility.

I think the field moves.

But what is potential?