Field Transformations work forwards but not backwards?

AI Thread Summary
Field transformations can be complex, and while they should theoretically work both ways, discrepancies can arise due to the use of low-speed approximations like Galilean transformations. The original poster initially believed their calculations were correct when transforming fields from reference frame A to B but found inconsistencies when reversing the process. It was clarified that using the Galilean transformations, which assume v^2/c^2 = 0, can lead to errors in results. The discussion emphasizes the importance of using the correct transformation equations for accurate field calculations. Understanding these nuances is crucial for resolving issues in field transformations.
Physics_5
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I got the right answer for this example problem going from reference frame A to B but when I use those fields to go back from B to A I don't get the same magnetic field I started with.

Do field transformations only work one way? Surely not? I don't see how forces could be the same if this were the case

Link to example problem: http://imgur.com/GCQeayW
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You must have made a mistake because the field transforms work both ways. Hard to help you though since you couldn't be bothered to tell us what calculations you've made so far...
 
After looking at the example you linked I realize that the transformations you're using are the the low speed approximations. These are not exact. That might explain any discrepancies you may have found. Hard to tell because, again, you did not give us much explanation about the problem you're confronted with.
 
Sorry for not posting calculations. I just read the next section and it addressed my concern. My reasoning was not wrong. The problem is that I was using the Galilean transformation equations, which I did not know we're based on the approximation v^2/c^2 = 0. Thanks everyone for helping.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top