Electrons exposed to time-dependent force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the momentum change of an electron exposed to a time-dependent force as described in Ashcroft and Mermin's text. The key point is that the momentum change includes a term of order dt^2 due to the non-constancy of the force f(t) over time. This term arises from applying a first-order Taylor series expansion to express the force at t+dt. While Newton's second law suggests a simpler relationship, the additional term reflects the nuances of time-dependent forces. The clarification highlights the importance of considering the force's variation when calculating momentum changes.
M-Speezy
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I have begun studying Ashcroft + Mermin on my own, and am trying to follow the math in the text. They suggest that an electron in a metal with some momentum p(t) and exposed to a force f(t) will at some time later (t+dt) have a contribution to the momentum on the order of f(t)dt plus another term on the order of dt*dt. My question is where does this dt^2 term enter? My instinct is to say that F=dp/dt, and that the change in momentum can then be given (very simplistically?) by f(t)dt. Obviously, a form of f(t) and an integral is in order, but I cannot see the logic of what is stated in the text.

Any and all help or guidance on the matter would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The term of order dt^2 comes from the fact that f(t) is not necessarily constant in time. It is related to the derivative of f(t).
 
Orodruin said:
The term of order dt^2 comes from the fact that f(t) is not necessarily constant in time. It is related to the derivative of f(t).
Why does this matter, though? I would think Newton's 2nd law would be used, and then a change in the momentum would simply be given by f(t)dt. I'm not sure what else should be done to lead to anything else.
 
It is just using Newton's second law, but Newton's second law is just the limit when dt goes to zero and so agrees with your result.
 
I figured it out I think. If the force at t+dt is instead expressed using a first-order approximated taylor series, then the extra dt comes out.
 
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