The correct derivation of magnetism as a relativistic side effect(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

of electrostatics:

http://chip-architect.com/physics/Magnetism_from_SR.pdf

I've claimed quite a few times here that Purcell's derivation is not

correct. Making claims is one thing. Better is to pinpoint exactly

what is wrong, and then, of course, provide the right derivation.

Two mistakes which cancel plus an omission eventually produce the

required result. We’ll discuss the mistakes and then give the correct

derivation, which, surprisingly (for me as well), turns out to be even

simpler. (for the case of the charge moving parallel to the wire)

Also derived is the case where the charge is moving perpendicular

to the wire. Furthermore, the required charge density is derived, for

the electrons in a current carrying wire, in order to be electrically

neutral in the rest-frame.

To be self consistent, the paper does derive the relativistic EM

potential and the relativistic electrostatic field for a point particle

from the classical EM wave equations in a way which is both short

and simple.

I spend a lot of effort to make the paper understandable and clear.

Regards, Hans.

P.S: An online presentation of Purcell's derivation is available here:

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRhandout.pdf#search="purcell simplified"

from Dan Schroeder (The one from Peskin & Schroeder)

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Correct derivation of magnetism from SR

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**