Do Magnetic Fields Do Nonzero Work on Moving Objects?

[Hootenanny]

These are 100 or more years old theories and equations, there should be more accessible and more public reference like Wikipedia articles or whatever on the Internet so everyone can see if it makes sense or not.

The theories and equations are available from many resources, Wikipedia included. However, this particular application is not.

By some chance, I know books you are referring to,

Do you indeed? Do you happen to have them to hand?

none of that can substitute Lorentz force equation, ergo it can not explain why would different current directions in two parallel wires cause wires to repel and why would current in the same direction make wires attract.

You seem to be clinging onto the Lorentz force for dear life, yet you have no idea how to apply it! As I, Born2bwire and Doc Al have said: The Lorentz force doesn't act on the wire, it acts on charges. Furthermore, the magnetic force only acts on moving charges. To a good approximation, all the mass of the wire is contained within the positive lattice. This lattice is stationary. Would you kindly explain how a magnetic force can act on a stationary positive lattice?

I'm asking you if you have read that book yourself and if you can be more specific what exactly do you think can explain that?

I have 'read' (meaning read the relevant sections) of both texts. Indeed, I have a copy of Grant & Phillips. If you turn to section 14 (pages 451 - 477), you will find a discussion on SR & EM which deals with this specific problem.

 

[Hootenanny]

You are wrong. Why do you hesitate to make citation here so everyone can see?

What do you mean "I am wrong"? Can you not locate the relevant subsection?

 

[Born2bwire]

What is the direction of Lorentz force then?


What force do you suggest is responsible?

Please see the attached picture. The trajectory is just off the top of my head so it should not be taken to be exact but this is the general shape of the path as I see it. The Lorentz force due to the magnetic field is shown in the thin arrows (magnitudes not to scale). The thick line is the displacement path.

This ignores the Lorentz force component from the resulting electric fields though. Perhaps it would be more instructive of you to ignore the actual physical wire. Treat the problem as I suggested earlier, as a stream of electron gas. Just assume that we have a line current of free flowing electrons. What is the displacement path of one of the electrons or current elements? Why don't you draw that out?

 

[Born2bwire]

Yes, it is plain to us that you do not understand what is going on with this problem.

If you do not understand how the trajectory that I drew arises with an electron gas then you sorely need to brush up on your mechanics. Once again, you should sit down and work out the cyclotron problem and from that realize how the trajectory arises and why there is no work done in that situation. The same situation is applicable here though there are additional caveats that can be ignored for the current purposes of teaching the basic electrodynamics.

There is nothing that we can do for you until you take the time to learn basic electrodynamics. Your refusal to to look at the problems that we have suggested and looking at the reference materials that have been suggested to you in many of the previous posts is preventing you from understanding this discussion.

 

[lugita15]

Just to clarify, the whole point of my thread is to try to understand whether or not the work done by the magnetic force on an object can ever be nonzero. Usually, people say that the work done by magnetic forces is always zero. But if statements A through E are true, then the work done by magnetic forces CAN be nonzero. So I am trying to find out which, if any, of the statements A through E are true.

 

[Born2bwire]

Just to clarify, the whole point of my thread is to try to understand whether or not the work done by the magnetic force on an object can ever be nonzero. Usually, people say that the work done by magnetic forces is always zero. But if statements A through E are true, then the work done by magnetic forces CAN be nonzero. So I am trying to find out which, if any, of the statements A through E are true.

Work is not done by the magnetic contribution to the Lorentz force. This is because the Lorentz force is directly acting upon the currents, not the wire. The wire is moved in reaction to the wire's ionic lattice being attracted via Coulombic forces between the displaced currents. That is, the Lorentz force displaces the electrons in the wire, the movement of the electrons causes them to pull the wire with them via electric fields (to first order). So when we are talking about the path of displacement over which the Lorentz force is acting, it is not in say the x direction (assuming that our wires run in the z direction). That is the direction of the movement of the wires but since the force is not acting on the wires it is not relevant. The force is acting on the moving charges that make up the current, now these charges had an initial velocity so they are actually going to be moving in a circular trajectory in response to the magnetic field. But as their velocity vector changes, so does the force from the magnetic field. The Lorentz force from the magnetic fields always changes its direction as the direction of the charge's movement changes too.

This circular trajectory is not noticed because the movement of the electrons is not impeded along the wire, so there is no movement in the wire along its axial direction. In addition, the wire is infinitely long, so we are looking at a superposition of charges that are all moving and reacting identically. On the whole, what we see is a line current moving together in one direction towards to the other wire.

But the other point to note is that if we allow the wires to be attracted over a distance, then we now have a changing set of magnetic fields since the currents are moving in space. This means that we now have a set of electric fields. So we need to now take into account the force that will arise from these electric fields. It actually becomes a complicated problem that is not apparent from the static force problem.

EDIT: I would say that statements A-E are correct. It is just when you assume that the path that we take our integral for the force is not the path that the wire moves. Ignore the wire, think of what would happen if we just had lines of electrons that were moving in place of the wires and currents. What happens to just one electron in response to the magnetic fields from the other wire? Keep in mind that when start the problem off, the electron already has an initial velocity, corresponding to being a current.

 

[Longstreet]

That is precisely my point, we can just have electric fields. It is possible to make a coordinate transformation such that the magnetic field disappears, leaving us only with the electric field. See for example, Grant & Philips; Electromagnetism, or Griffiths as Born2bwire suggests. Indeed, most undergraduate physics texts on electromagnetism will at least mention this.

I just wanted to state one last thing here. You cannot *always* completely transform away magnetic field. This is one situation where that is true, because you cannot take a pure magnetic field, and turn it into a pure electric field, by lorentz transformation. However, you can always transform so that vxB = 0, at least for one specific v.

 

[Per Oni]

It’s probably not going to be a popular move around here but I am going to drum up some support for DRUM.
I am not going to plough through 4 pages of statements but here are my thoughts.

A magnetic field of a source will:
1: only react with a magnetic field and 2: store energy.
Exactly the same can also be said of an electric field. Both are on an equal footing.

Now regarding of post #26: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...el_el_mag.html
I have raised this subject here a couple of times without much reply.

The logic put forward in this paper (and similar) to explain the (cause of) magnetic field as a result of relativity is this:

The space between conduction electrons in a current carrying wire is length contracted for an observer stationary with the +ve lattice of this wire. However this would result in the wire to become negatively charged wrt the observer. It is therefore necessary that these electrons move a little further apart length ways, because in reality this stationary wire is neutral even when carrying a current. Therefore according to this theory the combination of length contraction and “spreading out” results in the wire being neutral.

My main argument against this logic is this: where are these electrons going to spread to? Don’t imagine an infinite long wire but think of a real circuit. Spreading out of sight of an observer in one place only means heaping more electrons up somewhere else so that somewhere else the problem becomes worse.

Btw a slightly different explanation put forward sometimes is that the electric field of the electrons perpendicular to the current increases. However this also results in electrons having to spread out.

Now also look at a different aspect. In reality conduction electrons move randomly at a Fermi velocity which is 10 orders of magnitude higher then your average current drift velocity. Fermi velocity is of course in all directions but length contraction should be the same whether left, right up or down. Now how far are these electrons going to spread out for the wire to remain neutral? Where to?

 

[burashka]

I have read some of the posts in this thread but not all. However, it appears to me that some important but rather elementary facts are being lost sight of.

First, an electric wire is made of charged particles. When these particles move, as the wire moves as a whole, there might be some work done on each of these particles. When summed over all particles of the wire, it yields the total work done on the wire. According to the Lorenz law, the magnetic field does no work on every particle in particular and, consequently, no work on the wire as a whole.

Second, the work which is being considered in the first post (the example with two wires) is done by the electric field. The field originates from the elementary charged particles which make up the wire. In a sence, the wire is "pulling itself up by the hair". This is, in fact, possible when the motion is constrained, and the magnetic field provides such a constraint.

Third, a relevant mechanical example of constrained motion in which you can literaly pull yourself up by the hair is a man on a swing. If you stand on a swing, you can swing yourself up by periodically bending your knees and moving your center of gravity up and down relative to the base of the swing. Since your velocity is always perpendicular to the force of reaction that the swing exerts on your feet, the swing (more specifically, the force of reaction) does no work at all. Nevertheless, when you swing yourself up, you gain some potential energy. Who then made the work? The answer is simple: you did. You have used your internal chemical energy to make your muscles flex and to pull yourself up in the air, and the swing has provided a useful constraint to your motion without which such a "self-lift" would be impossible. Nevertheless, the swing has done no work at all.

Same with the two wires. The energy is supplied by the source of the current and converted into mechanical energy by means of electric force between the charged particles of the wire. The magnetic field provides a useful constraint.

 

[Longstreet]

DRUM, if magnets did work then motors would not require any electrical energy to run, except for a small resistance in the wire, and conversely a permanent magnetic would lose all magnetism almost instantly because its magnetic energy would be consumed in doing work on the rotor. People have tried to make perpetual motion machines by doing this over and over and no one has succeeded. Why? Because magnets can't do work.

Motors do consume electrical power, which is actually MORE then the measured output power because of losses, and the permanent magnets retain their strength for the entire life of the motors. This is verified every day in millions of motors.

 

[Per Oni]

DRUM, if magnets did work then motors would not require any electrical energy to run, except for a small resistance in the wire, and conversely a permanent magnetic would lose all magnetism almost instantly because its magnetic energy would be consumed in doing work on the rotor.

Does such a motor consume electric field? Does it consume electrons? Of course not. Such a motor consumes energy supplied via a net work of electrical and magnetic fields. Most likely this energy comes from coal, gas or nuclear power stations.

 

[Longstreet]

It does consume electrical fields, because that is what you put into move the electrons. That's why you need to supply power to maintain the electric field. Otherwise it would be used up, disappear, and work would cease to occur.

 

[Longstreet]

You need to be a student of this instead of an authority. You are the one who is wrong. I am trying to make this simple because you have no background in physics. But I can see there is no point in trying to explain it further. Please try to study electromagnetism for yourself in the texts already listed.

 

[Born2bwire]

Same with the two wires. The energy is supplied by the source of the current and converted into mechanical energy by means of electric force between the charged particles of the wire. The magnetic field provides a useful constraint.

Yes, exactly, it would not surprise me if we could find that the energy is sourced from the fact that we have to maintain the currents for the problem to remain the same. That is, the magnetic fields divert the trajectory of the currents, normally they would run along the z direction but the force from the magnetic fields would, without changing the magnitude of v, change their direction. The loss of velocity in the z direction would mean that the current now has changed. But since we have hooked our wire up to some kind of voltage source, we would inject energy to maintain the same currents. I wonder if that can be used to show the same change in energy that we expect from the movement of the wires. I think though that it would be a very convoluted means to do so, plus it ignores the work done to pull the wire with it. That would be a lateral force due to the invariance in the z direction. Well, perhaps it would at least be a means of finding the energy expended in moving the charges themselves. Hmmm... interesting ideas.

 

[Longstreet]

you can integrate vxB (where v is the velocity of the wire) along the wire to find the motional emf which will oposes the emf put into the wire to drive it forward.

 

[Per Oni]

It does consume electrical fields, because that is what you put into move the electrons. That's why you need to supply power to maintain the electric field. Otherwise it would be used up, disappear, and work would cease to occur.

The motor is supplied with energy which comes in a combination of E and H, as given in the Poynting vector S=E x H.

 

[burashka]

Lorentz law is not about fields, but about FORCE, which is why it is called 'Lorentz force law'. Why do you even mention FIELDS? Where did you ever hear fields do work? Why not talk about how unicorns do no work? What is this? FORCE DOES WORK, NOT FIELDS.

Do you realize Lorentz force acts exactly in the direction of wire displacement?

At any rate, there is no need to shout or be impolite. Of course I understood your argument the first time I saw it. I've heard it many times before from students. You should not assume that you are the first to come up with this great counterexample.

The Lorenz Force on a point particle of electric charge q, moving in electric field E and magnetic field B with the velocity v is F=qE + (q/c)v\timesB. The second term in this formula is the force due to the presence of magnetic field, and it is always directed perpendicularly to the particle velocity, v. This is why people say that the magnetic field does no work: because the force which arises due to the presence of the magnetic field does no work. No unicorns needed to understand that, I hope.

Now since the magnetic field does no work on any charged particle of the wire, it does no work on the wire as a whole, either.

The mistake you have made is that the force apparently applied to the macroscopic wire is not by any means the magnetic part of the Lorentz force. Indeed, the wire is electrically neutral, and the Lorenz force, as defined above, needs a net charge (or charge density).

In reality, the magnetic part of the Lorenz force is applied ONLY to the free electrons which drift inside the wire. The effect of the magnetic field is to curve the electron trajectories (without doing any work!) and to make electrons bump onto the wore wall from inside. This deviation of electron motion from straight trajectories creates local deviation from electric neutrality inside the wire and, as a result, gives rise to some macroscopic electric field. This electric field does the work when the wire is mechanically accelerated as a whole.

This may seem to be impossible: the wire literally accelerates itself, as if in violation of the Newton's third law. And it would be impossible without the presence of the magnetic field. The latter constrains the motion in such a way that the Newtons third law is no longer applicable. The two subsystems of the wire (the negatively charged conductivity electrons and the positively charged ions) exert on each other a net total force. This is the force that is observed macroscopically and makes the wire accelerate.

In general, the third law in electrodynamics should be applied only with extreme caution. There are many instances when it breaks.

Think some more about the example with the swing; it may be useful to gain some understanding of what's going on.

What formulas do you use to model this interaction?

How do you explain wires repel if we change direction of the current in one wire?

A) The Columb law of electrostatics.

B) Because the electrons, when they deviate from straight trajectories inside the wire, can go either to the left or to the right, depending on the direction of the external magnetic field, and they would push the wire either to the left or to the right.

Finally, why is it such a big topic? I've noticed that general public (by that I mean nonphysicists) are most interested in the subjects which are abolutely inconsequential and can not be even considered as part of theoretical physics.

How does it matter whether the magnetic field does work in this situation or not?

Can you offer an experiment in which your understanding of this phenomenon would lead to a different observable? Can you predict a new effect? If not, this discussion has no relation to physics whatsoever and should be moved to philosophy or linguistics forum.

 

[SystemTheory]

Comment on my philosophy. Galileo, who is recognized as a pioneer of empirical methods, said the (untested) ideas of the philosophers gave him a great pain! Now this flies in the face of conventional "wisdom," which regards emotion as playing no part in theoretical science! I have discovered it is impossible to reason without first forming emotions, which Spinoza defines as "a feeling accompanied by an idea about its cause." He also said the greatest good is for men to join, one with another, in bonds of common reason. However there is a great challenge with joining in bonds of common reason, stated in a song lyric from the 1980s, "Communication is the problem to the answer."

 

[burashka]

Comment on my philosophy. Galileo, who is recognized as a pioneer of empirical methods, said the (untested) ideas of the philosophers gave him a great pain! Now this flies in the face of conventional "wisdom," which regards emotion as playing no part in theoretical science! I have discovered it is impossible to reason without first forming emotions, which Spinoza defines as "a feeling accompanied by an idea about its cause." He also said the greatest good is for men to join, one with another, in bonds of common reason. However there is a great challenge with joining in bonds of common reason, stated in a song lyric from the 1980s, "Communication is the problem to the answer."

I am not sure about Spinoza and emotions, all this is totally above my pay scale. But one thing seems to be certain. There is a big difference between "untested" and "untestable" and the great lesson that Galileo has taught us is that we should not spend energy thinking about things or theories which are in principle untestable. The philosophers of the antiquity all seed to had notions of absolute rest and absolute motion, but Gallileo has posed the question: how do you distinguish between these two states experimentally? If there is no way to do that, then there is no reason to try to answer the question whether the ship moves forward or the ocean moves backward. It's just an idle question.

It's OK to set up "thought experiments" which so far can not be implemented in iron. But theories or propositions which are in principle untestable do not belong in physics or (in my humble opinion) in science in general.

 

[Per Oni]

the Lorenz force, as defined above, needs a net charge (or charge density).

Nope. Any moving charge in a neutral wire will do.

This may seem to be impossible: the wire literally accelerates itself, as if in violation of the Newton's third law. And it would be impossible without the presence of the magnetic field. The latter constrains the motion in such a way that the Newtons third law is no longer applicable.

What nonsense.
I just can't believe anybody around here wrote this.

From Wikipedia:

Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction

I can assure you that this law is not violated as any engineer knows who’s job it is to calculate forces exerted by magnetic fields eg in motors.

I got this feeling that w're slowly going to coocoo land with this thread.

 

[burashka]

Nope. Any moving charge in a neutral wire will do.

Unfortunately, it won't. The mathematical expression for the Lorenz force has explicitly a charge or a charge density in it (if we use the expression for the force density). Expressions which contain currents, say J, are based on the assumption that J=rho*v, where rho is the charge density. See, for example, Landau, v.VIII.

Typically, people extrapolate and assume that the force which is applied, sticktly speaking, only to moving charged particles, is the same as the force which is acting on the whole electrically neutral system (the wire in this case). This is a mistake.

What nonsense.
I just can't believe anybody around here wrote this.

From Wikipedia:

I can assure you that this law is not violated as any engineer knows who’s job it is to calculate forces exerted by magnetic fields eg in motors.

I got this feeling that w're slowly going to coocoo land with this thread.

The only assurances which are worth something are those of the Federal Reserve.

In pair-wise particle interactions, the Newton's third law is, of course, obeyed, unless retardation is taken into account. BTW, retardation is the major cause of the third law breaking. The motor engineers (or the people why contribute to Wikipedia) do not know about that because they have never seen a retarded Green's function.

But the reason for the third law breaking in our case is somewhat different. It is the presence of an external constraint to the motion.

Consider a bunch of electrons flying along the axis of a positively charged holow cylinder. All electrons are on axis and the system is electrically neutral, on average. Now apply an external magnetic field perpendicularly to the cylinder axis. The magnetic part of the Lorenz force will act on the moving electrons but not on the stationary positively-charged cylinder. The magnetic field would force the electrons to deviate from the straight-line trajectory and to curve either to the right or to the left and eventually bump into the cylinder wall. When such collision occurs, the momentum is conserved and the third law is satisfied. The cylinder gets a little momentum, say, to the right, and the electron recoils backwards, say, to the left. But the magnetic field would continue to bend the electron's motion and to change its momentum direction until the electron again bumps into the wall.

The net effect of all these bumps is the following: the positive cylinder acquires some momentum pointed to the right, but the electrons don't acquire equal momentum, pointing to the left. This is because the magnetic field can not change energy but can change momentum.

Thus, when averaged over many collisions, one would observe that the electrons push the cylinder to the right. The third law breaks.

Constrained motion is a difficult concept and it is often left out of the undergraduate classical mechanics courses. Even in Landau v.1, the chapter on parametric resonance (which is somewhat similar conceptually) is listed as "optional" in a course of theoretical physics. May be this fact can explain the misunderstandings. But lack of education is not a good explanation for the blatant and arrogant rudeness that the previous poster has demonstrated. Stupidity, however, is.

 

[SystemTheory]

My understanding is that in the modern view Conservation of Momentum can be used to derive Newton's Third Law for an isolated system. Momentum p = mv is conserved, then the terms F = dp/dt in a time-derivative of conserved momentum should include action reaction pairs.

I haven't studied the theory extensively, but in a direct current brush motor the moving electrons collide with the wall of the wire to generate torque in the air gap, and the motor casing, which holds the permanent magnets, transfers a torque to the system to which it is attached.

This suggests to me that the magnets and current conducting wire have a coupled tendency to change momentum (force) and Newton's Third Law holds true. I am not aware of how or why this law would not hold for a closed system (one that incorporates the source of magnetic flux in the system boundary).

 

[burashka]

Yes, exactly, the third law follows from conservation of momentum. Momentum is conserved in every pair-wise collision. However, the magnetic field does change the momentum of freely moving charged particles 9the conductivity electrons) inbetween the collisions. This is why, I think, the third law can breaks here when we average over many collisions.

 

[SystemTheory]

The simple case of the charge changing velocity (accelerating) without colliding with anything is then that of an electron (or proton) moving in a constant circle in a magnetic field at constant velocity vC.

It seems to me the conservation of momentum and Newton's Third Law would hold upon proper analysis of the source of centripetal force, regardless of its cause (gravity, magnetism, etc) in that case. However it is also recognized that a centripetal force accelerates the body without changing it's kinetic energy, and does zero work. This comment was just made on another thread about the change in kinetic energy in different frames of reference.

 

[burashka]

The simple case of the charge changing velocity (accelerating) without colliding with anything is then that of an electron (or proton) moving in a constant circle in a magnetic field at constant velocity vC.

It seems to me the conservation of momentum and Newton's Third Law would hold upon proper analysis of the source of centripetal force, regardless of its cause (gravity, magnetism, etc) in that case. However it is also recognized that a centripetal force accelerates the body without changing it's kinetic energy, and does zero work. This comment was just made on another thread about the change in kinetic energy in different frames of reference.

I am a little confused. There is no centripetal force in the lab frame; only the Lorentz force. The really-really total momentum is, of course, always conserved, but to see that you need to account for the momentum of the cyclotron radiation. As for the mechanical system only, its momentum does not need to be conserved in this problem.

So the simple mathematical statement is correct: a constant magnetic field can change the momentum of a charged particle moving in it. Of course, the field is never truly constant.

 

[Longstreet]

You have the two conservations, in vector form:

Energy:

<br /> \nabla \cdot S + J \cdot E + \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}= 0<br />

Momentum:

<br /> [\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} + \rho E + J\times B]_i - \frac{\partial T_{ij}}{\partial x_j} = 0<br />

S = poynting vector (viewed as energy flux density, and/or momentum flux density)
u = EM energy density
T = EM stress tensor

So it can be seen that energy is exchanged with matter solely through the electric field, while momentum is exchanged through both electric and magnetic fields. But of course it is a two way street. You would view this as Newtons third law for EM. Viewing it this way Newton's third law is not violated, just reinterpreted. All momentum exchange total zero.

 

[Per Oni]

The mathematical expression for the Lorenz force has explicitly a charge ...in it

Just like I said.

Consider a bunch of electrons flying along the axis of a positively charged holow cylinder. All electrons are on axis and the system is electrically neutral, on average.

I know what you are getting at as long as you are aware that those electrons would immediately start to accelerate towards the +ve cylinder even without a magnetic field. (or even without a +ve charge) And secondly those electrons have already a kinetic energy.

Now apply an external magnetic field perpendicularly to the cylinder axis. The magnetic part of the Lorenz force will act on the moving electrons

And in turn the electrons will act on the magnetic field. Force and counter force.
No real need to go any further. But I’ll do anyway.

but not on the stationary positively-charged cylinder. The magnetic field would force the electrons to deviate from the straight-line trajectory and to curve either to the right or to the left and eventually bump into the cylinder wall. When such collision occurs, the momentum is conserved and the third law is satisfied. The cylinder gets a little momentum, say, to the right, and the electron recoils backwards, say, to the left. But the magnetic field would continue to bend the electron's motion and to change its momentum direction until the electron again bumps into the wall.

The net effect of all these bumps is the following: the positive cylinder acquires some momentum pointed to the right, but the electrons don't acquire equal momentum, pointing to the left. This is because the magnetic field can not change energy but can change momentum.

Thus, when averaged over many collisions, one would observe that the electrons push the cylinder to the right. The third law breaks.

There’s no real need for many collisions. Just let the electrons curve into the cylinder wall and have an inelastic collision. Then they loose their KE and momentum in one go. The cylinder gets a push to the right but at no time was the third law violated. Even if you want many bounces nothing changes.

 

[SystemTheory]

I regard a field as a mathematical model to predict changes in momentum (force) over distance specified with or without a time delay. These momentum interactions can be of course microscopic or macroscopic and through such interactions we infer the existence of a field and build a model consistent with what is observed. The term "force field" is not used by experts yet it is faithful to the science when used in popular culture.

On the issue of which force-fields do work if a source and sink interact, the electrical or magntetic force-field, I have not thought hard about the topic. In DYNAST shell multi-domain simulator there is a domain for magnetic circuits including magnetic capacitors and lossy conductors/resistors, but no element for a magnetic inductor. This suggests to me that magnetic energy and power transfer are at least defined in a domain separate from the more common domain of electric circuit theory. It seems to me there is a domain where EM power interactions are better characterized as purely magnetic in character.

The potential in the magnetic domain is measured in the SI unit of ampere. I confess difficulty grasping the concept of magnetic circuits, although I've seen diagrams for, say, the magneto to produce spark in a combustion engine.

 

[kcdodd]

I don't think magnetic circuits have anything to do with anything other then the magnetic field itself. Maxwells equations are nearly symmetric except for a minus sign and the absence of magnetic charge/current, so you can use things we have to solve electric fields to solve magnetic fields as well. If there was such a thing as a magnetic charge then everything would automatically apply from what we know about electrical circuits. The lorentz force would have some extra terms, and where the electric field cannot do any work on magnetic charges from the J_m\times E term (J_m = magnetic current), just like the J_e\times B term for electric current.

 

[burashka]

There you go again.

Forces do the work, not fields.
Never any field does any work.

I thought we've discussed this. This is purely a matter of terminology. I have explained that when physicists say, for example, "electric filed does work" they imply the more precise statement that the force qE does work. When they say that MF does no work, they imply that the force (q/c)vxB does no work. That's just the widely used terminology; I have explained it to you and went on with the physical arguments. I am sure that you understand perfectly what is meant. Why then making so much fuss about nothing?

Incorrect. Lorenz force does not need net charge, that is an EFFECT of superposition where positive electric charge neutralize negative, mathematically by vector addition, but the CAUSE and the direction for Lorentz force comes from the velocity vector of those charges, regardless of the presence of protons or neutrons. This interaction is very well defined by magnetic force, both Lorentz and/or Ampere's force. Do you disagree with Wikipedia?

Would you please write an expression for the Lorenz force which does not contain charge or charge density? If you use current J, then define this quantity from first principles.

By the way, you correctly write that "...the CAUSE and the direction for Lorentz force comes from the velocity vector of those charges [that move], regardless of the presence of... [other charges]". Equally correct is the statement that the Lorenz force is only applied to those charges that move, not to the stationary charges or the system as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampère's_force_law

Promise to me never to look in wikipedia again.

"...when they deviate"?

Electrons deviate from their trajectories because of...?

Because of the force (q/c)vxB or because, as I would say, of the external magnetic field.

Would that explain Z-pinch as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch
"The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. The Z-pinch uses this effect: the entire plasma can be thought of as many current-carrying wires, all carrying current in the same direction, and they are all pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts."
[/QOUTE]

Of course, it would explain any experimental observation. Maxwell equations + Lorenz force explain the vast majority of macroscopic EM phenomena.

There you go again.

FORCES do the work, not fields.
Never any FIELD does any work.

And you...

Are you calling me stupid for your inability to distinguish between FIELDS and FORCES, which I tried to help you with by capitalizing letters, is that what you're talking about? Stupidity is a good explanation for rudeness, eh?

Actually, I referred to someone else, not you. That poster was really rude. And yes, the cause of that rudeness was stupidity. Any moderately smart person would understand that being rude is not going to advance his argument at all.

Yes, and yes. Again, it is known as "Ampère's force law".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampère's_force_law

If you believe that you can predict some experimental observation which is not anticipated in the traditional theory, you should be able to publish your findings. In other words, if your ideas are in any way novel and correct, they are publishable. There are two journals which consider somewhat contaversial or of-mainstream articles: Foundations of Physics and Old and New Concepts in Physics... You might try to send your ideas there if you feel serious about them.