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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jason12345
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potentials
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the justification of the (1-v/c) factor in the Lienard-Wiechert potentials for a moving charge. Participants explore theoretical interpretations and derivations related to this factor, referencing various texts and derivations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how Lienard and Wiechert justified the (1-v/c) factor in their potential formula.
  • Another participant asserts that the derivation is found in many textbooks, but challenges the interpretation of these derivations compared to the original works of Lienard and Wiechert.
  • A participant references Heitler's "The Quantum Theory of Radiation," discussing the concept of a collapsing spherical wavefront and its implications for charge density and conservation.
  • There is a suggestion that the factor in question may relate to a different expression for power radiated, rather than the Lienard-Wiechert potentials themselves.
  • A simpler derivation is proposed, indicating that the factor can be expressed as the ratio of time intervals, dt/dt_r, where t_r is the retarded time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the justification of the (1-v/c) factor, with multiple interpretations and models presented. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the original arguments used by Lienard and Wiechert.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the interpretations of the derivations, particularly concerning the assumptions made about charge conservation and the nature of the wavefront. The discussion highlights the complexity of the topic without resolving these nuances.

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 [tex](1-{\hat r}\cdot{\vec v}[/tex] 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
[tex]\frac{dt}{dt_r}[/tex] where [tex]t_r[/tex] is the retarded time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K