How Relativity Connects Electric and Magnetic Fields

nathan.br
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I came to the following article, and I have a questions about it:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html

From this article, it seems that if the electric current is not flowing in a wire, but instead in vacuum there will be no repelling force (since there is no background positive charge). If there is no repelling force, what we call magnetic field in the wire frame of reference will not exist.

Can I conclude that an electric current does not create a magnetic field if it is flowing in vacuum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When you remove the wire and its positive charges, in the second frame you do eliminate the electric field that the positive charges produce. However, in the first frame (the "wire frame") you now have to take into account the electric field that the negative charges produce!

The electric field produced by the negative charges has a different magnitude in the two frames, because the charge density is different in the two frames.
 
nathan.br said:
Hi,

I came to the following article, and I have a questions about it:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html

From this article, it seems that if the electric current is not flowing in a wire, but instead in vacuum there will be no repelling force (since there is no background positive charge). If there is no repelling force, what we call magnetic field in the wire frame of reference will not exist.

Can I conclude that an electric current does not create a magnetic field if it is flowing in vacuum?
I think that the game with infinitely long wires is counterproductive. Have a look at JEMWA 20 No.9 1189 2006 "Relativistic derivations of electric and magnetic fields generated by an electric point charge moving with constant velocity"
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top