How do two charged particles move in an electromagnetic field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConradDJ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrodynamics
AI Thread Summary
Two charged particles with opposite charges will accelerate toward each other when stationary, generating a magnetic field that slows their acceleration without altering their motion direction. When considering relative angular velocity, both particles create currents that lead to magnetic fields, potentially deflecting their paths perpendicularly to their motion. The complexity of the two-body problem in classical electrodynamics is acknowledged, with a suggestion to derive it from Maxwell's equations, noting that the equations will be more complex than those in Newtonian gravity. The discussion also highlights the utility of the center of inertia reference frame, which simplifies the equations governing the system's dynamics. Overall, the interaction of charged particles involves both electrostatic and magnetic forces, necessitating a comprehensive approach to fully understand their behavior.
ConradDJ
Gold Member
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
A simple question: if we have two particles with opposite charge, and nothing else going on to affect the field, then how do they move?

If they start out stationary with respect to each other, then they accelerate toward each other, and this current creates a magnetic field. That would slow the acceleration, but not change the direction of the particles' motion.

What about the general case in which they start off with some relative angular velocity?... so there are two currents, and I suppose the magnetic fields must deflect the particles in a direction perpendicular to their relative motion... but my intuition seems to break down here.

Does anyone know where I can look for a diagram of this situation?

Many thanks -- Conrad
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's what I'm trying to understand --

Newtonian gravity is very simply formulated as a relationship between two bodies. If you add a third body, the situation gets chaotic, and I understand there's no analytic solution to the equations.

Classical electrodynamics seems rarely to be formulated that way, in terms of two-body interaction. It's evidently much simpler to describe it in terms of a single charged particle or a current moving in a field.

So I'm trying to find out how difficult the 2-body problem is in electrodynamics. Obviously the equation will be more complex than Newton's... but is it straightforward to derive this from Maxwell's equations?

If anyone can point me to a discussion of this, I'd appreciate it.
 
I think you can write two similar equations: each for one particle in the field of another one plus the filed equations with sources due to these two particles. If you neglect the radiative friction, it is sufficient in your case. In non relativistic case it will a potential interaction of two charges with small corrections due to magnetic forces. See Landau-Lifgarbagez 'Theory of Field' or so.
 
Last edited:
Bob -- thank you for getting me oriented.

But now since you were the one who responded, I have to ask a further question, having in mind your very interesting "reformulation" of QED in the Independent Research forum... Does this two-particle problem look significantly different if described in terms of the Center of Inertia of a compound system?

In the context of classical electrodynamics, is that just a matter of writing the same set of equations in a center-of-inertia reference-frame? Or does the "compound system" perspective play an interesting role here as well?

Conrad
 
The center of inertia and relative coordinates (R and r) are convenient because the corresponding equations are decoupled (independent of each other):

Mtotd2R/dt2=0

µd2r/dt2=q1q2r/r3

These equations are written in an arbitrary reference frame, so generally R(t) = R(0) + Vt. In the center of inertia reference frame the evolution of R is the most trivial: R = 0, but it does not influence the second equation anyway.

In the approximation where only electrostatic and magnetic (instant) interactions are taken into account, this separation of variables should seemingly hold. I do not have any book at hand right now, so I cannot make sure and type it for you. I think the first equation will not change (probably the definitions of R and Mtot will obtain some relativistic and interaction corrections) and the second equation will contain in addition a magnetic force term.

In case where the interaction potential retardation and radiation are essential (they are additional variables, degrees of freedom that carry energy-momentum) the equation system should include the field equations too, that's for sure. As the number of equation increases and the equations get more complicated, the advantage of using R and r (instead of r1 and r2) may disappear.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top