# Charge's Frame: Electric Field of Moving Charge

• unscientific
In summary, in the charge's own rest frame, it sees only a static electric field with a magnitude of ##\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}##. There is no magnetic field, and the electric field is time-dependent.
unscientific
We all know that in the lab frame observing a charge moving along x-axis, we see an electric field ##E = \frac{Q}{4\pi \epsilon_0 x^2\gamma^2}##, picking up an extra factor of ##\gamma^2## at the bottom.

Assuming no external fields are present, what would the charge see in its own rest frame? It should see zero electric field, right? Since in the charge's rest frame, it only sees the lab frame moving and nothing else.

unscientific said:
We all know that in the lab frame observing a charge moving along x-axis, we see an electric field ##E = \frac{Q}{4\pi \epsilon_0 x^2\gamma^2}##, picking up an extra factor of γ2\gamma^2 at the bottom.

I don't think the ##\gamma^2## factor in the denominator is right; shouldn't it be ##\gamma## in the numerator?

Also, there would be a magnetic field, since there is a nonzero current density due to the moving charge. And the electric field would not be static; at any given point in the lab frame, it would be time-dependent, since the charge is moving so the distance to it varies with time.

unscientific said:
what would the charge see in its own rest frame? It should see zero electric field, right?

No, certainly not. In the charge's rest frame, you would see the static electric field ##\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}##, without the extra factor of ##\gamma^2## and with no time dependence. But you would not see a magnetic field, since the charge is not moving in this frame.

PeterDonis said:
I don't think the ##\gamma^2## factor in the denominator is right; shouldn't it be ##\gamma## in the numerator?

Also, there would be a magnetic field, since there is a nonzero current density due to the moving charge. And the electric field would not be static; at any given point in the lab frame, it would be time-dependent, since the charge is moving so the distance to it varies with time.

I should be more specific. Charge is moving in S frame but not in S'.

Sorry I meant ##E = \frac{Q}{4\pi \epsilon_0 x^2\gamma^2}##. Yes there is a factor of ##\gamma## at the numerator, but there is also a factor of ##\gamma^3## at the denominator due to change of coordinates ##x'= \gamma x##.
PeterDonis said:
No, certainly not. In the charge's rest frame, you would see the static electric field ##\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}##, without the extra factor of ##\gamma^2## and with no time dependence. But you would not see a magnetic field, since the charge is not moving in this frame.

So in the charge's rest frame, we see a stationary charge and ##E'_{||} = \frac{Q}{4\pi \epsilon_0 x'^2}##. The maths turns out right.

Last edited:
unscientific said:
Yes there is a factor of ##\gamma## at the numerator, but there is also a factor of ##\gamma^3## at the denominator due to change of coordinates ##x'= \gamma x##.

I'm still not seeing this; what you are saying does not seem consistent with how electromagnetic fields Lorentz transform. See, for example, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classi...rmation_of_the_fields_between_inertial_frames

We are in agreement on how the field looks in the charge's rest frame: a static E field with magnitude ##\frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}##, and no magnetic field. (Actually, we may not be in complete agreement, since as you'll note, I put ##r^2##, not ##x^2##, in the denominator. The static E field in the charge's rest frame is spherically symmetric.) But I don't see how you are getting from that to your expression for the E field in the frame in which the charge is moving. (Also, as I noted before, there is a B field in that frame; you haven't given a formula for that at all.)

Last edited:
unscientific said:
We all know that in the lab frame observing a charge moving along x-axis, we see an electric field ##E = \frac{Q}{4\pi \epsilon_0 x^2\gamma^2}##, picking up an extra factor of ##\gamma^2## at the bottom.

I don't know that. For instance http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/Lecture_Notes/P436_Lect_18p5.pdf (and also wiki) give the expression that the perpindicular component of E gets multiplied by ##\gamma##, (as opposed to ##\gamma^2## which is your claim), while the parallel component of E doesn't change magnitude at all. There is also a magnetic field generated by a moving charge, and an electric field generated by a moving magnetic field.

Assuming no external fields are present, what would the charge see in its own rest frame? It should see zero electric field, right? Since in the charge's rest frame, it only sees the lab frame moving and nothing else.

In it's own rest frame in flat space-time, there is only an electric field, given by coulomb's law.

pervect said:
I don't know that. For instance http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/Lecture_Notes/P436_Lect_18p5.pdf (and also wiki) give the expression that the perpindicular component of E gets multiplied by ##\gamma##, (as opposed to ##\gamma^2## which is your claim), while the parallel component of E doesn't change magnitude at all. There is also a magnetic field generated by a moving charge, and an electric field generated by a moving magnetic field.
In it's own rest frame in flat space-time, there is only an electric field, given by coulomb's law.

I'm referring to the parallel component..

unscientific said:
I'm referring to the parallel component..

In the charge's rest frame, there's no such thing as a "parallel component"; the electric field is static and spherically symmetric.

In the frame in which the charge is moving, as pervect says, the component of the electric field parallel to its motion is unchanged from the charge's rest frame; only the component perpendicular to the motion changes.

unscientific
None of my saved links with pictures of the E-field of a moving charge are still up:(. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node125.html has the equations though. The equations are there, it'd be too annoying to type them in latex. Most of the variables are self explanatory, ##u_r## is a bit mysterious until you read the previous page, "potential due to a moving charge", http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node124.html where where it is defined as the radial component of the velocity, thus when r points in the direction of the velocity v, the value is v, when r points orthogonal to v, the value is zero.

The treatment uses tensors, unfortunately, but hopefully you can still find the results useful. I think Griffith's textbook has a non-tensor treatment.

As far as the question of what happens for a motionless charge goes, when you substitue ##\gamma =1## and ##u_r = 0##, you get the field of a motionless charge, which is just what you'd expect, a coulomb field pointing in the r direction whose magnitude is proportional to the inverse square of the radial distance. In the notation used, that is

(the usual constants) * ##\frac{\vec{r}} {r^3}##, r being ##| \vec{r} | ##. Note the web-text used ##\mathbf{r}## where I use ##\vec{r}##.

#### Attachments

• efield.png
35.8 KB · Views: 448

## 1. What is a "Charge's Frame" in relation to electric fields?

A "Charge's Frame" refers to the frame of reference in which a charge is at rest. In this frame, the electric field surrounding the charge will appear static and not changing with time.

## 2. How does the electric field of a moving charge differ from that of a stationary charge?

When a charge is in motion, it creates a magnetic field in addition to its electric field. As a result, the electric field of a moving charge will appear distorted and changing with time in its own frame of reference. However, to an observer in a different frame, the electric field may appear to be static.

## 3. What is the relationship between the electric field and the velocity of a moving charge?

The electric field of a moving charge is directly proportional to its velocity. This means that as the charge's velocity increases, so does the strength of its electric field.

## 4. How does the orientation of a moving charge affect its electric field?

The orientation of a moving charge can affect the direction and strength of its electric field. For example, a charge moving parallel to a nearby charge will create a stronger electric field compared to a charge moving perpendicular to it.

## 5. Can a moving charge's electric field be shielded or cancelled out?

Yes, a moving charge's electric field can be shielded or cancelled out by introducing an opposite charge in its path. This is known as the principle of superposition, where the electric fields of individual charges can combine or cancel each other out.

• Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
553
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
464
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
947
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
470
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
4K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
45
Views
6K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
3K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K