Charged particle moving relativistically through E field

eck
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Right now I'm taking an introductory E&M class that uses Purcell's book "Electricity and Magnetism." The chapter we're covering focuses on deriving the Lorentz force law for moving charges using SR arguments. This is confusing because we've never covered SR before, so I have a lot of difficulty going through the appropriate transformations and understanding what's going on. One problem that is troubling me a lot goes like this:

Consider the trajectory of a charged particle moving with a speed 0.8c in the x direction when it enters a large region in which there is a uniform electric field in the y direction. Show that the x velocity of the particle must actually decrease. What about the x component of momentum?

This is totally counterintuitive to me, and if someone could explain it for me I would really appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the coordinate system where the particle is moving at .8c, is the electric field stationary? If so, there should be no magnetic field, and thus no reason for the momentum of the particle in the x direction to change.


If the electric field was moving, it'd be a different story.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by the field being stationary. If you're asking if the electric field varies with time, then the answer is no. The observer seeing the electron moving past at 0.8c measures no magnetic field. In the reference frame of the particle, however, there is a magnetic force caused by the lorentz contraction of the field lines. In fact, the Lorentz force equation is the definition for the magnetic field. From my book: "It will turn out that a field B with [the properties of the Lorentz force equation] must exist if the forces between electric charges obey the postulates of special relativity."
 
I think I just figured it out. The quantity c^2p^2 - E^2 is not changed by the Lorentz transformation, so it seems like a good equation to start from. Since the electric field does work on the particle the energy term gets bigger, which means the momentum term must get smaller. Because the particle gains y-velocity, the x-velocity must decrease if the momentum is going to decrease. Does this sound reasonable?
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top