Deriving Magnetic Force w/ Approximated Gamma-Factor at UVA

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of magnetic force using Lorentz contraction and electrostatic force, specifically focusing on the implications of approximating the gamma factor to the order of ##v^2##. Participants explore how such approximations can yield results consistent with non-approximated calculations, while also addressing the validity of claims made in a referenced lecture from the University of Virginia.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how an approximation can yield the same result as a non-approximated calculation, suggesting that errors from multiple approximations should not cancel out in this context.
  • Another participant argues that the claim regarding observers in different frames agreeing on the rate of particle acceleration is incorrect due to time dilation effects, asserting that forces should differ between frames.
  • A later reply clarifies that the non-relativistic approximation retains terms of order v^2/c^2 or lower, indicating that differences in acceleration between frames would be of order v^4/c^4, thus justifying the approximation to that order.
  • One participant draws a parallel to using the binomial theorem to derive the Newtonian kinetic energy equation from the relativistic one, emphasizing the neglect of higher-order terms.
  • Another participant references the Feynman Lectures on Physics to provide an exact analysis, noting that transverse forces change between systems due to time dilation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of certain claims about acceleration and forces in different frames. There is no consensus on the implications of the approximations used in the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for errors introduced by approximations and the conditions under which they may or may not cancel out. The discussion remains focused on the implications of these approximations without resolving the underlying mathematical details.

greypilgrim
Messages
583
Reaction score
44
Hi.

On the webpage of a lecture at the University of Virginia, I found this derivation of the magnetic force using Lorentz contraction and electrostatic force. They approximate the gamma factor to the order of ##v^2## and get the correct result. How is it possible to get to the same result using an approximation as one would get without approximating anything?

Of course, if multiple approximations are made to terms that get subtracted or divided, the errors introduced by the approximations might cancel out. But I can't see this happening here, using the same approximation for the increase in positive charge density and decrease in negative charge density and adding them should even increase the error.

What am I missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"So observers in the two frames will agree on the rate at which the particle accelerates away from the wire"

That sentence from the web page is is not true at all, because anything the particle does is time dilated in the wire frame, that includes accelerations.

And the result of the calculation is wrong. Forces should be different in the two frames, not the same.

Edit: Oh yes the problem was that the result should have been slightly wrong, but it seemed to be exactly right. That problem is solved now. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: julian
jartsa said:
"So observers in the two frames will agree on the rate at which the particle accelerates away from the wire"

That sentence from the web page is is not true at all, because anything the particle does is time dilated in the wire frame, that includes accelerations.

And the result of the calculation is wrong. Forces should be different in the two frames, not the same.

He's doing a non-relativistic approximation, keeping only the terms of order v^2/c^2 or lower. The difference in the acceleration in the two frames would be of order v^4/c^4. So it's correct to that order.
 
This is similar to when you use the binomial theorem to get the Newtonian kinetic energy equation from the relativistic one by neglecting the higher order terms- and the reason you can ignore those terms is because (v/c)4 << (v/c)2
 
The exact analysis is given in section 13-6 of the second volume of the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

The difference is because, as jarsta alluded to, transverse forces change as you go from one system to another due to time dilation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K