Eqs of motion for 2-body problem in EM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pellman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2-body Em Motion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the equations of motion for two interacting charges in an electromagnetic field, specifically focusing on the relativistic case where retarded time is considered. Participants seek expressions for the forces acting on each charge, denoted as f_1 and f_2, in terms of their positions and velocities. It is noted that the equations become complex and less practical in classical physics due to the involvement of retarded time and acceleration. There is a particular interest in ensuring the correct Lagrangian formulation that can produce these equations of motion. The conversation emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of the Lagrangian to accurately describe the system's dynamics.
pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
What are the equations of motion for two charges where the two charges are the only sources for the EM field? (No background field)

What I'm looking for is given two particles of mass m_1 and m_2 with respective position vectors x_1 and x_2, what are f_1 and f_2 such that

m_1\frac{d^2x_1}{dt^2}=f_1(x_1,\dot{x}_1,x_2,\dot{x}_2)

m_2\frac{d^2x_2}{dt^2}=f_2(x_1,\dot{x}_1,x_2,\dot{x}_2)

?

Anyone know of a text which covers this? A Lagrangian or Hamiltonian for the same situation would do as well.

I'm looking for the relativistic case in which the propagation time is taken into effect. That is, x_2,\dot{x}_2 in the expression for f_1 should be taken at the "retarded time", and similarly for x_1,\dot{x}_1 in f_2.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You must mean the second time derivative.
The equations for f are quite complicated, and just about useless in classical physics because they involve the retarded time and the acceleration itself.
The equations for constant velocity of each particle are simpler, but they are useless if the particles start to accelerate (or had been accelerating in the past).
 
clem said:
You must mean the second time derivative.

Thanks! Of course. I corrected it.

The equations for f are quite complicated, and just about useless in classical physics because they involve the retarded time and the acceleration itself.

Oh, I know the solutions are useless. My purpose is that I want to understand certain aspects of the Lagrangian. And to make sure I have the correct Lagrangian, it needs to be able to yield the equations of motion. Or, as I say in OP, I'd be happy with the correct Lagrangian itself.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top