Can the Effects of Relativity be Detected in a Simple Wire Experiment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rockazella
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity Test
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the detection of relativistic effects in a wire carrying an electric current. Participants explore whether a mass increase in the wire can be observed due to the relativistic behavior of electrons, specifically addressing electron drift velocity and signal propagation speed. Key points include the distinction between the slow drift velocity of electrons and the near-light-speed propagation of signals, as well as the implications of relativistic mass changes in particle accelerators. Ultimately, the consensus is that while relativistic effects are significant, detecting a mass increase in a wire under normal conditions is unlikely.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Knowledge of electron drift velocity and its implications
  • Familiarity with particle accelerators and their operational principles
  • Basic concepts of electromagnetic forces between charged particles
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Einstein's theory of relativity and mass-energy equivalence"
  • Study "Electron drift velocity in conductive materials"
  • Explore "Relativistic effects in particle accelerators"
  • Investigate "Electromagnetic forces between parallel wires and their relativistic implications"
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students of advanced physics who are interested in the practical applications of relativity and the behavior of charged particles in electric currents.

Rockazella
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
Here’s a quick thought I had.
Since electrons experience relativistic effects just like any other matter, would you be able to detect a mass increase in a wire if you sent a current through it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The actual net movement of electrons in a current carring wire is very small. The actual electon drift velocity is not even close to c.
 
Einstein wrote in his second relativity paper that one might check out E=MC2 by weighing radioactive material at two different times and comparing the weight difference to the total radioactive energy emitted in between. He later admitted it was a foolish idea.
 
The actual net movement of electrons in a current carring wire is very small. The actual electon drift velocity is not even close to c.

Isn't it true that the signals speed is near c? I guess I don't really understand what you mean by electron drift velocity, mind explaining?
 
The name is very discriptive. The actual speed of a single electron or its drift velocity is much smaller then c. Signal probogation on the other hand is a signifigent fraction of c. This is not an uncommon phenonemn, even in water waves a molecule of water remaings nearly stationary horizontanly as the wave passes.
 
On a similar note, in particle accelerators, they can get particles to go quite fast, so do the particles ever get heavy enough from their speed that putting a plumb line a few feet from the accelerator would be noticably perturbed when the accelerator is running? Granted, this wouldn't be as cheap as running a current through a wire.
 
Originally posted by Jonathan
On a similar note, in particle accelerators, they can get particles to go quite fast, so do the particles ever get heavy enough from their speed that putting a plumb line a few feet from the accelerator would be noticably perturbed when the accelerator is running? Granted, this wouldn't be as cheap as running a current through a wire.

Just what would that prove?

Even thought particle accelerators have had sufficient energy to push particles well beyond c, if we lived in the world of Newtonian Physics, they have been unable to. Why? because of relativity, the speeds achieved for the energy input match the predictions of relativity to many decimal places.
 
Integral: I don't understand your post, but my point was that maybe the paricle would get heavy enough to have a noticable attraction for the plumb line. I really doubt it though, it was just an idea.
Mr. Robin Parsons: According to relativtity, it should be unmeasurably heavier while hot, not the other way around. Maybe water condensation?
 
Last edited:
Johnathan, its a lot easier than you're making it out to be: since the particle accelerator has to accelerate the particle, you can tell exactly how much energy you put into the particle and then measure its speed. Even a mediocre particle accelerator puts enough energy into a particle to accelerate it well beyond C under Newtonian mechanics. So the relativistic effects are clear as day.
 
  • #10
Oh! Upon rereading Integral and Russ_water's posts, They are clear know, I don't know how I missed the point before.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Rockazella
would you be able to detect a mass increase in a wire if you sent a current through it?
Probably not.
But there is an easy relativistic explanation of forces between parallel wires:
Let's assume that positive charges are at rest, and negative charges flowing (OK, OK,...)
Imagine how one electron in wire A 'sees' wire B.
- If the currents have the same direction, then the electron will see the positive charges length-contracted, i.e. condensed. No change on negative charges. So wire B appears net positive, so attraction.
- If the currents have opposite directions, then the positive charges appear condensed, but the negative charges more condensed. So net negative charge, so repulsion.

I know that drift velocities are only some cm/s, but on the other hand you have a very large number of electrons. When doing the math, you arrive at the correct force, believe me.

And of course, this doesn't 'prove' anything about relativity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K