(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.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top