B Force between 2 Point Charges Across Frames

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the net force between two point charges in both their rest frame and a lab frame where they are moving. The net force in the rest frame is given by F = q²/4πε₀r², while in the lab frame, it includes a magnetic force component, resulting in F' = q²/4πε₀r² - μ₀q²v²/4πr². The confusion arises from the expectation that F' should equal F/γ, but calculations suggest it equals F/γ². The transformation of the electric field when the charge moves is also discussed, noting that the electric field becomes stronger perpendicular to the motion and weaker along it. Understanding these transformations is crucial for accurately calculating forces in different reference frames.
silverrahul
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
The force between 2 moving point charges in the lab frame should be 1/ϒ times the force in their rest frame. But my calculations are showing 1/ϒ^2 times the force in rest frame. Where am i going wrong ?
So, i was trying to calculate, the net force between 2 point charges in their rest frame, and in a frame where they are moving.

So, assume, there are 2 point charges each of charge +q.
They are r distance apart from each other and moving parallel to each other with a speed v relative to a lab observer.So , in the unprimed frame, i.e. the rest frame of the point charges.
Net force of repulsion between them F = q2/4πε0r2Whereas in the primed frame , i.e the lab frame,
Net force ( including the magnetic force ) = F' = q2/4πε0r2 - μ0q2 v2/4πr2

Upon rearranging the terms of F', it results in F' = F / ϒ2

But, it was my understanding that F' should be equal to F / ϒ
Can someone please point out where i am going wrong ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What kind of electric field is measured when charge q flies past a measuring device at speed v?

The maximum value is: ##E=\gamma(v)*q/4πε_0r##
 
silverrahul said:
No , i think it should be E=q/4πε0r2
That's for the rest frame of the charge. If you transform the E field into frame where the charge moves, it gets length contracted, and thus stronger perpendicular to the motion, but weaker in line with the motion.

Electric-Field-of-a-Charged-Particle.png

From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Electric-Field-of-a-Charged-Particle_fig2_2177605
 
  • Like
Likes silverrahul
A.T. said:
That's for the rest frame of the charge. If you transform the E field into frame where the charge moves, it gets length contracted, and thus stronger perpendicular to the motion, but weaker in line with the motion.From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Electric-Field-of-a-Charged-Particle_fig2_2177605
Thanks a lot for this . I had no idea about this, i will look it up to see if it helps
 
silverrahul said:
Summary:: The force between 2 moving point charges in the lab frame should be 1/ϒ times the force in their rest frame. But my calculations are showing 1/ϒ^2 times the force in rest frame. Where am i going wrong ?

Whereas in the primed frame , i.e the lab frame,
Net force ( including the magnetic force ) = F' = q2/4πε0r2 - μ0q2 v2/4πr2
Your transformations for the E field are incorrect. See here for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity#The_E_and_B_fields

In this case since in the rest frame ##\vec B=0## and since ##r## is perpendicular to ##v## (meaning also that ##\vec E## is perpendicular to ##v##) we have: $$\vec E'=\gamma(\vec E + \vec v \times \vec B)-(\gamma - 1)(\vec E \cdot \hat v) \hat v= \gamma \vec E$$ $$ \vec B' = \gamma \left(\vec B - \frac{\vec v \times \vec E}{c^2} \right) - (\gamma - 1) (\vec B \cdot \hat v)\hat v = - \frac{\gamma}{c^2} \vec v \times \vec E$$ so then ##\vec F' = q \vec E' + q \vec v \times \vec B'## which gives $$F'= q \gamma \vec E + q \vec v \times (-\frac{\gamma}{c^2} \vec v \times \vec E) = q \gamma \vec E - q \gamma \frac{ v^2}{c^2} \vec E = \frac{q}{\gamma}\vec E$$
 
Last edited:
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...