I Does Larmor precession change the force exerted on a magnetic dipole?

AI Thread Summary
A spinning spherical charge in a nonuniform magnetic field exerts a constant force on the dipole, as derived from F=(mu•∇)B=mu_z*k. While torque typically aligns the dipole moment with the magnetic field, it acts perpendicular to both the magnetic field and dipole moment, indicating that angular momentum in the direction of the magnetic field remains unchanged. This suggests that the product mu•B, and therefore the force on the dipole, remains constant despite the presence of torque. Additionally, the discussion highlights that a magnetic field as described cannot exist in nature due to Gauss's Law, which states that the divergence of the magnetic field must equal zero. For a complete understanding of motion in magnetic fields, an equation for the magnetic moment is necessary, as it introduces an additional degree of freedom related to spin.
okaythanksbud
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
The torque on a spinning charge seems like it would change the magnetic moment to be more aligned with the B field but is this actually the case?
If we have a spinning spherical charge in a nonuniform magnet field that points in one direction (for simplicity lets say B=<0,0,k*z>). Since the magnetic field is nonuniform, there will be a force exerted on the dipole, F=(mu•∇)B=mu_z*k. So in this case we expect it to be constant. This is dependent on the assumption that mu•B stays constant
However, we are neglecting torque. Upon first glance wed expect the torque to push the charge to align the dipole moment with the magnetic field. However, the torque points perpendicular to the magnetic field and the dipole moment, so it seems like the angular momentum in the direction of the B field (and hence the magnetic moment) would stay constant, while the angular momentum perpendicular to mu and B would change. So just like this image indicates, I'd expect the motion due to torque to not affect mu_z, which would keep F=(mu•∇)B constant.
1693943069511.png


Even though its the unintuitive answer, I'm lead to believe that mu*B, and hence the force of the dipole in the B field would stay constant. Am I correct in this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your ##\vec{B}##-field can't exist in Nature, because according Gauss's Law for the magnetic field you have ##\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0##.

For complete equations of motion you must have also an equation for the magnetic moment, which is an additional degree of freedom, related to "spin". Here's a paper, dealing with the formalism (in relativistic form) and applying it to the motion in external plane-wave em. fields:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.02594
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.052218
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top