Do I have to re-define electric field strength in Centre of Mass frame

AI Thread Summary
When computing torque from the interaction of two electric dipoles in the lab frame, the electric field strength and force vectors do not need to be redefined when switching to the center of mass (COM) frame because fields and forces remain consistent across inertial frames in a non-relativistic context. The discussion clarifies that non-relativistic means special relativity is not a concern, making it easier for beginners to understand. Additionally, it is noted that while fields and forces are invariant, other parameters such as position, velocity, kinetic energy, and momentum may change between frames. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing these distinctions for a clearer understanding of physics concepts. Overall, the principles of electric fields and forces maintain their validity across different inertial frames.
elemis
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
So let's say I'm computing the torque as a result of the interaction between two electric dipoles in the lab frame. Let's imagine they are in some electric field.

I then do : τ = r×F

If I now switch to the centre of mass frame I have to find their position vectors from the COM.

Why do I not have to re-define the electric field strength vector and ultimately the force vector on each dipole with respect to the centre of mass frame ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Non-relativistic? Fields and forces (at specific points) are the same in all inertial frames.
 
mfb said:
Non-relativistic? Fields and forces (at specific points) are the same in all inertial frames.

I'll be honest, I don't completely follow what you mean by non-relativistic.

I'm a first year Chemistry student so the idea of inertial frames is a very new concept.
 
I'll be honest, I don't completely follow what you mean by non-relativistic.
Non-relativistic = you don't care about special relativity. Okay, it's fine.

I'm a first year Chemistry student so the idea of inertial frames is a very new concept.
It is just a more general way to say "fields and forces are the same for the lab and the center of mass frame".
 
mfb said:
Non-relativistic = you don't care about special relativity. Okay, it's fine.

It is just a more general way to say "fields and forces are the same for the lab and the center of mass frame".

Oh, okay, I see what you mean now. Thanks !

Beside fields and forces what else does not change between the lab and COM frame ?
 
Masses, relative velocities, distances, all internal paramters of objects, ...
Position, velocity, kinetic energy and momentum (and maybe angular momentum, depending on its definition) are the only changing things, unless I forgot something.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top