(1 (+-) v/c) factor in the Lienard Wiechert potentials

  • Thread starter Thread starter jason12345
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potentials
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the justification of the (1-v/c) factor in the Lienard-Wiechert potentials for a moving charge. Participants question how Lienard and Wiechert derived this factor, noting that while textbooks provide derivations, the original arguments remain unclear. Heitler's explanation involves a collapsing spherical wavefront that accounts for changing charge density as it moves, yet some argue this does not align with the conservation of total charge. The conversation also touches on the relationship between this factor and the retarded time in radiation calculations. Overall, the need for clarity on the original justifications by Lienard and Wiechert is emphasized.
jason12345
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know how either Lienard or Wiechert justified the (1-v/c) factor that appears in their potential formula for a moving charge?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The derivation is in many textbooks.
 
clem said:
The derivation is in many textbooks.

How do you know their interpretation is the same as that of Lienard and Wiechert?

In my copy of The Quantum Theory of Radiation by Heitler, for example, he uses the idea of a collapsing spherical wavefront with velocity c centred on the field point that samples the charge within a volume dv. He then says that within a time dt as the spherical wavefront moves a distance dr, charge is added or removed from the volume dv, compared to if it the charge inside was static and hence gives rise to the additional term rho v/c.

Yet this charge entering/leaving the volume element is compensated by charge leaving/entering another volume element so the net effect is that there is a change in the charge density which is compensated by the change in the volume occupied by the charge as the wavefront sweeps through it. This means the total charge sampled by the wavefront should be conserved, whereas the Lienard Wiechert expression shows that it isn't.

Hence, I'm interested in knowing what arguments Lienard and Wiechert originally used.
 
I think you are referring to a factor (1-{\hat r}\cdot{\vec v} introduced into the expression for the power radiated into a solid angle, and not a factor in the L-W potentials. Heitler's description is a bit convoluted, but gets the right factor.
A simpler derivation (probably not L's or W's) is that that factor equals
\frac{dt}{dt_r} where t_r is the retarded time.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top