Liénard-Wiechert potential derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert potential for a moving point charge in classical field theory. A question arises regarding the presence of the Lorentz factor γ in the current density when transitioning from a stationary frame to a boosted frame. It is clarified that the missing γ factor is accounted for within the delta function, as the transformation from position r to r' incorporates this factor. Specifically, the identity δ(x) = c δ(cx) is used, leading to δ(r) = (1/γ)δ(r'). This explanation resolves the confusion regarding the current density representation in different frames.
Snaab
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I'm studying some classical field theory, and I have a question about the derivation of the Liénard-Wiechert potential for a moving point charge, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liénard–Wiechert_potential#Derivation" for the derivation and the meaning of the symbols I use.

The current density in the observing frame is said to be given by:
j^\mu (\mathbf{r},t) = e(1,\mathbf{v_0}) \delta(\mathbf{r'} - \mathbf{r_0}(t)).

Now comes my question.
In the stationary frame, the 4-current density should be given by:
j^\mu(\mathbf{r}) = (c e \delta(\mathbf{r}),0)

So, when this gets boosted, shouldn't one have the following current density:
j^\mu = (\gamma c e \delta(\mathbf{r'} - \mathbf{r_0}(t)), \gamma e \mathbf{v_0}\delta(\mathbf{r'} - \mathbf{r_0}(t)))

In other words, why isn't there a factor \gamma in the density like posed on wikipedia? Also in my own literature there is no such factor.

Cheers,

Snaab
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The missing γ has been swallowed by the delta function. There's a γ in the transformation from r to r', and one must use the identity δ(x) = c δ(cx). In other words, δ(r) = (1/γ)δ(r').
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top