Field Acceleration: Gravitational, Magnetic & Electric Fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter yourdadonapogostick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration Field
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the magnitudes of the magnetic field vector \vec{B} and electric field vector \vec{E} do not equate to the acceleration due to their respective fields, unlike the gravitational field vector \vec{G}, which is defined as the acceleration due to gravity at a point. The gravitational force is proportional to mass, leading to a consistent value for gravitational acceleration, while electric and magnetic forces depend on charge and velocity, respectively. The gravitational constant varies slightly across the Earth due to its irregular shape, affecting local gravitational acceleration. The Lorentz force equation describes how electric and magnetic fields produce force, with implications for momentum change in both non-relativistic and relativistic contexts. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for comprehending field dynamics in physics.
yourdadonapogostick
Messages
270
Reaction score
1
the magnitude of the gravitational field vector, \vec{G}, is equal to g at that point. does that mean that magnitudes of \vec{B} and \vec{E} are equal to the acceleration due to magnetism and electric fields, respectively, at a point?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
no.
gravity is different, since the force acting on a mass is proportional to the mass, thus you get a "constant".
 
with electricity, the force is proportional to the charge.
 
When you write down the equation for the gravitational force you get :

\frac {Amm'}{r^2}

A is the universal gravitational constant, m amd m' the two masses and r is the distance between those two masses. The above formula is ofcourse the component of the interaction along the axis that connects the two masses.

Now write this force as mG then G = \frac {Am'}{r^2}

Suppose you look at an object with mass m on this earth. You describe the gravitational interaction between this object and the Earth by setting m' equal to the Earth's mass, A is a universal constant, and r is the Earth's radius. Now, if this object is 100 above the Earth's surface, you should have written for r the value of the Earth's radius PLUS 100m. But since the Earth's radius is much bigger, just forget about the 100m

If you fill in these values for G, you will get the 9.81 m/s^2 that we all know.
The expression for G which depends on the mass m' and the distance between m and m' also suggest why the gravitational constant is not everywhere the same value on this earth. Well, the Earth is not a perfect sphere right :wink:


hope that helps

marlon
 
E and B produce force by the Lorentz force equation:
F=q[E+vXB].
This equals the rate of change of momentum: dp/dt.
Non-relativistically, dp/dt=ma, but in SR the acceleration is much more complicated.
dp/dt is still relatively simple in SR.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top