Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Explanation of EM-fields using SR

  1. Oct 5, 2013 #1

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you think about this explanation of EM-fields using SR?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 5, 2013 #2

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Narrator slips up a few times and says "moving" instead of "moving relative to", but other than that it's pretty good.
     
  4. Oct 5, 2013 #3
    I don't immediately get why the separation of the negatively charged particles doesn't contract from the man's reference frame, as they are moving relative to him, and therefore there would be a negative overall charge.
     
  5. Oct 5, 2013 #4

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It seems like an attempt to popularze Purcell.

    I have a suspicion that it will confuse it's target's audience , but I'm not sure if that can be helped, considering that it's an attempt to reach as many people as possible (and hence put the "target" as low as possible).

    Personally, I'd save this sort of explanation for someone who is sophisticated enough to work out what charge densities are required (as measured in the lab and comoving frames, the comoving frames of the electrons being different from the lab frame) to ensure electrical neutrality in the lab frame. Perhaps I'm being pessemistic, perhaps not.
     
  6. Oct 5, 2013 #5

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Purcell should be popularized in my opinion. It's the best EM text I know of.

    As for Noyhcat, take a look here: http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html as it explains things in a much more lucid manner than does the video commenter in my opinion.
     
  7. Oct 5, 2013 #6

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    That tends to be the point that confuses most of the people that actually understand the argument being presented, so kudos on understanding the argument.

    The spacing of the electrons in the wire frame is determined by the observed fact that the wire is uncharged in the wire frame. This is a "boundary condition" that can be experimentally controlled.

    For example, instead of having an uncharged wire you could give the wire an excess positive charge by putting it at a very high voltage. If you did that then the spacing between electrons in the wire frame would be greater than the spacing between protons.

    Once the spacing is determined in the wire frame, then it is determined in all frames.
     
  8. Oct 5, 2013 #7

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks for the link, but I don't think it adresses Noyhcat's point, as it also starts out with the current already flowing and the wire being neutral in the lab frame.

    Let's start with a wire without a current. It is neutral too, so the distances between pos. and neg. charges are equal here. Now what happens when a current starts flowing? Judging by the video and your link only one type of charge starts moving and gets contracted in the lab frame. So the wire should become charged in the lab frame, which is not the case.

    Shouldn't both charge types move in opposite directions in the lab frame? Then they are contracted by the same amount, and the wire remains neutral in the lab frame. Only when you move relative to the wire the contractions become different, and the wire becomes charged. The problem is of course that they identify positive charges with protons which cannot move in the lab frame, instead with the electron holes that are moving opposite to the electrons in the lab frame.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2013
  9. Oct 5, 2013 #8

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This is related to what I was trying to say earlier.

    There are three possibilities:

    1) Ignore the issue, which is what the video has done. Then you'll get questions like Noyhcat's.
    2) Try to explain this in the video - which will raise the bar on the target audience
    3) Raise the bar on the target as far as the "target audience" is concerned.

    Overall, I favor 3, because ignoring the issue doesn't really work, and I'm afraid I don't know how to do 2) (explain the issue) without violating 3) (raising the height of the target audience).
     
  10. Oct 5, 2013 #9

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You're right A.T. in that the link doesn't answer that particular question in a straightforward manner. Do you have access to Griffiths book? Perhaps his explanation would be to your liking. Check out section 12.3.1.
     
  11. Oct 5, 2013 #10

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you think about my idea in post #7, with both charge types moving in opposite directions in the wire's frame? Does it work out quantitatively? I don't think it would make the video more difficult to understand.
     
  12. Oct 5, 2013 #11

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That's what Griffiths does in the aforementioned section.
     
  13. Oct 5, 2013 #12

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is the title of the book?
     
  14. Oct 5, 2013 #13

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  15. Oct 5, 2013 #14

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited: Oct 5, 2013
  16. Oct 5, 2013 #15

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I like the video and DaleSpam's answer. One has to specify what is happening in one frame of reference, eg. there is a current in the wire, and the wire containing the current is uncharged in the lab frame. Relativity is a relationship between frames of reference, so if you specify what happens in one frame, it tells you what happens in another frame.
     
  17. Oct 5, 2013 #16

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, with the clarifications mentioned by DaleSpam it makes sense. But otherwise many will try to extrapolate the presented mechanism, to see what happens when a current starts/stops flowing.
     
  18. Oct 5, 2013 #17

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Maybe something like this:

    We know that in the lab frame we can set up a wire with a current in it. We know we can do this in a way such that the wire is electrically neutral, because the wire neither attracts nor repels a charged particle that is stationary in the lab frame. Since we have set up the wire to be electrically neutral in the lab frame, the distance between positive charges is the same as the distance between negative charges in the lab frame. Now, will the wire attract or repel a charged particle that is moving in the lab frame? If the only force that affects charged particles is the electric force, since the wire is electrically neutral in the lab frame, it will neither attract nor repel a moving charged particle.
     
  19. Oct 5, 2013 #18

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yeah.
     
  20. Oct 6, 2013 #19
    And how do you explain, if the current carrying wire is made of highly doped n-type semiconductor, when you don't have any holes to go by.
     
  21. Oct 6, 2013 #20
    I think role of physics is in finding relations(mostly logical) between observations, for example what should we observe if we stop the current, and we all know it is an observed fact that the wire still remains electrically neutral. The point is, according to the SR length contraction explanation, it should not be neutral when we stop the current if it were to be neutral when there was a current.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Explanation of EM-fields using SR
  1. SR and electric fields (Replies: 20)

Loading...