Question about Retarded Time and Moving Charges

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of retarded time in relation to moving charges, specifically questioning whether the distance r should be a function of normal time t or retarded time t'. It clarifies that if the observation point is stationary and the charge is moving, then r should be expressed as r(t'), reflecting the distance at the time the signal was emitted. Additionally, if both the charge and observation point are in motion, the distance must account for both positions, leading to a more complex equation. The final equation presented incorporates the positions of both the charge and observation point relative to a fixed origin. Understanding these relationships is crucial for accurately applying the concept of retarded time in electromagnetic theory.
dipole
Messages
553
Reaction score
151
I have a quick question about the retarded time when dealing with moving charges.

The retarded time is:

t' = t - \frac{r}{c}

where r is the distance between the point of observation and the position of the charge.

My question is very simple, is r a function of the normal time t, or the retarded time t'?

That is, which equation is correct?

1. t' = t - \frac{r(t)}{c}

2. t' = t - \frac{r(t')}{c}

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Depends on which one is moving. If the observation point stays still, and the charge is moving, then you are interested in r(t'), the distance at time the signal was emitted.

More generally, suppose both the charge and observation point are moving, with rc and ro being positions of charge and observation point respectively relative to some fixed origin. In that case, the distance traveled by the wave will be function of both.

t' = t - \frac{||\vec{r}_c(t')-\vec{r}_o(t)||}{c}
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top