Attempt to find the magnetic field of a moving charge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the calculation of the magnetic field generated by a moving charge, exploring the implications of relativistic effects on electric and magnetic forces. Participants examine various approaches, including the use of Liénard-Wiechert potentials, and discuss the complexities of electric field transformations in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using Liénard-Wiechert fields for a more straightforward calculation of the magnetic field.
  • One participant argues that the electric field of a moving charge is "length contracted," which introduces additional forces that must be accounted for in calculations.
  • Another participant acknowledges the need to simplify the problem by considering the charges moving together in one frame, rather than breaking it into multiple frames.
  • There is a discussion about how the electric force in one frame is larger due to relativistic effects, leading to confusion about the relationship between electric and magnetic forces.
  • Participants express uncertainty about whether the transverse component of the electric field increases when transitioning between frames, and how this relates to the magnetic field generated.
  • One participant references external sources to support their position, but acknowledges conflicting interpretations from those sources, leading to further confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct approach to calculating the magnetic field or the implications of relativistic effects on electric fields. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the nature of the forces involved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the treatment of electric and magnetic forces in different reference frames, and participants express uncertainty about the application of relativistic transformations to their calculations.

Hiero
Messages
322
Reaction score
68
First let me say THANK YOU to anyone who reads my work and tries to help, I know it can be a pain to decipher the work of others (although I've tried to make it as clear as possible). If any part is unclear I will try to explain it.

I cannot for the life of me see any flaws in the argument, so help is much appreciated.

Also note that [v-u] stands for the relativistic difference of speeds.

IMG_0496.JPG


EDIT: on the second to last expression (on the bottom line) I left out a 1/c^2 factor on accident but the result is unchanged
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0496.JPG
    IMG_0496.JPG
    71 KB · Views: 695
Physics news on Phys.org
When a moving charge passes a still charge, there is some "extra Coulomb force", because the electric field of the moving charge is "length contracted". I mean, in a frame where the charge moves its electric field is "length contracted".

So include that to your calculation ... or make the relative speed of the charges zero.
 
@Dale Well I don't just want the answer, I want to know why this simple setup yields a wrong answer.

@jartsa I already accounted for that effect. In the picture I said, "but we know FE = ϒvF1," I didn't explain why, but it's because of the effect you're referring to. The electric force in the third frame (FE) is ϒv times larger than the electric force in the first frame (F1).
Any other ideas as to why this went wrong?
 
@jartsa I was mistakenly thinking I had to break it up into three frames with two speeds but you are right we can just work with q and Q moving together and one frame moving v relative to them.

Lets still call the coloumb force F1, which is now the proper force on q, so in the other frame the force must come out to be smaller: FE+FB = F1/ϒ where we also have (by the effect you mentioned) FE = ϒF1

Putting those together and solving for B gives the exact same wrong answer as in my OP.

Surely someone can point out the error now that the derivation is this simplified?
 
Hiero said:
@jartsa I was mistakenly thinking I had to break it up into three frames with two speeds but you are right we can just work with q and Q moving together and one frame moving v relative to them.

Lets still call the coloumb force F1, which is now the proper force on q, so in the other frame the force must come out to be smaller: FE+FB = F1/ϒ where we also have (by the effect you mentioned) FE = ϒF1
Well in this case "length contraction" of the electric fields is considered magnetism. Whatever force the "length contraction" may cause, that is counted as a magnetic force.

Any difference in the net force in different frames is considered a magnetic force:

F' - F = Fmagnetic

And the difference in the net force according to special relativity is: F-F/ϒ
 
jartsa said:
Well in this case "length contraction" of the electric fields is considered magnetism. Whatever force the "length contraction" may cause, that is counted as a magnetic force.

Any difference in the net force in different frames is considered a magnetic force:

F' - F = Fmagnetic

And the difference in the net force according to special relativity is: F-F/ϒ

You have me thoroughly confused now. Is it not true that the transverse component of a proper electric field becomes larger (by gamma) when boosting out of the proper frame? But you're saying this is the source of the magnetic field? That doesn't make sense to me for various reasons and it also doesn't give the right magnetic field.
Actually, looking at the other thread, I don't think I made any mistakes. I think whoever told me I was wrong was wrong. I say this on the basis of the link given by @Khashishi (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node125.html) in the other thread.

In fact I think this link also agrees with my answer, given the simplifications of my setup. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liénard–Wiechert_potential (although at first I thought it disagreed).
Edit:
Wait no, this latter link does disagree. So now I'm confused as to why
 
Hiero said:
You have me thoroughly confused now. Is it not true that the transverse component of a proper electric field becomes larger (by gamma) when boosting out of the proper frame? But you're saying this is the source of the magnetic field? That doesn't make sense to me for various reasons and it also doesn't give the right magnetic field.

Hmmm electric field becomes stronger as you say, which causes Coulomb force to be larger, well I never thought of that. Oh dear.In post #1 when calculating F1 is this taken into account?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
13K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K