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

Click For 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
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
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
875
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K