Electrostatics and reference frame

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the existence of an electrostatic potential drop in a uniform magnetic field within a zero-dimensional system. The participant grapples with the implications of observing a constant electric field derived from the Lorentz transformation, questioning the source of this electric field in a scenario where no charge separation is apparent. They conclude that the current density associated with the static magnetic field must contribute to the perceived charge density in the moving frame, thus supporting the existence of an electric field. However, they express confusion about the potential gradient, as the uniformity of the magnetic field suggests a zero gradient for the electrostatic potential. The conversation highlights the complexities of electric and magnetic field transformations across different reference frames.
Heimdall
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm stuck with a question concerning electric fields : Can an electrostatic potential drop exist in (what I would call) a 0 dimensional system ?

Let's imagine we are in a region of space where there is nothing but a uniform magnetic field. So the problem is anisotropic but does not depend on the position. We then decide to move in a certain direction (not aligned to the magnetic field).

When we have reached a constant velocity, say V, we see, in our reference frame, a magnetic field B', almost identical to B, and an electric field which has a value given my the lorentz transformation E'=-VxB.

V and B being uniform and constant over time, E is uniform and also constant in our reference frame.

I wondered what was the "source" of the electric field seen in the moving frame. As it is a constant, it cannot be a induction field. It therefore has to be an electrostatic field. Ok but then were is the source ?

I was stuck for a while with this question when I realized that I forgot the current density consistent with the static magnetic field in initial frame. In the moving frame, a part of this current density *must* be seen as a charge density that would thus be consistent with the electrostatic field.

Ok but then, if there's an electrostatic field, where is the potential drop ? My problem does not depend on any variable, the magnetic field is uniform in all space(*), saying this must be somehow the same as saying that the gradient of the electrostatic potential is zero ? But I see an electric field... This electric field can be very strong (depends on B and V) but we continue to ignore variations (derivatives) ... this looks like a paradox to me.


(*) maybe the solution lies in the assumption of uniformity ? I mean assuming the magnetic field is completely uniform must be somehow wrong, but don't exactly see what's going on...


Thanks for your help !

Heim.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

I see that nobody seems inspired by my post. I'll try to sum it up by a few concise questions.

1/ An observer, defining a reference frame R, sees a uniform magnetic field B and a uniform electric field E. Both B and E are constant over time. Can he conclude that the electric field is electrostatic ? (meaning that there is a charge separation somewhere in the universe that would be consistent with this electric field).

I would say yes, because from this observer's point of view, there is no time variation of the magnetic field and no change of flux through any surface...


2/ Can I say that the transformation of the electric and magnetic fields when I change my reference frame is always the "consequence" (or consistent with) of the transformation of the sources (current density and charge density) ?


3/ In the observer's frame, the electric field is uniform and constant over time. Can he write \mathbf{E}=-\nabla\left(V\right), where V would be the electric potential ? if so, how could there be a potential gradient in a world where nothing depends on the location ?


Thanks for helping me with these question :-)
 
I was using the Smith chart to determine the input impedance of a transmission line that has a reflection from the load. One can do this if one knows the characteristic impedance Zo, the degree of mismatch of the load ZL and the length of the transmission line in wavelengths. However, my question is: Consider the input impedance of a wave which appears back at the source after reflection from the load and has traveled for some fraction of a wavelength. The impedance of this wave as it...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top