I Increase in surface charge density in different frames of reference

lys04
Messages
144
Reaction score
5
I am reading Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism and am getting confused on equation 5.22. It seems to me they are using relativistic velocity addition for u' which is u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2), but aren't we solving for the velocity of the electrons in the test charge's frame of reference, so should be using the reverse transformation instead? i.e u=(u'+v)/(1+u'v/c^2)?
The only way this equation has the correct sign is if v=-v though, I guess this makes sense because if in the lab's frame the test charge is moving to the right with velocity v then in the test charge's frame of reference the lab is moving to the left with same speed?
1726964398494.jpeg
1726964408189.jpeg
1726964415294.jpeg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lys04 said:
I am reading Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism and am getting confused on equation 5.22. It seems to me they are using relativistic velocity addition for u' which is u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2), but aren't we solving for the velocity of the electrons in the test charge's frame of reference, so should be using the reverse transformation instead? i.e u=(u'+v)/(1+u'v/c^2)?
No, they want to calculate the primed velocity of the electrons.

In the book is misleading, that they call (before Eq. 5.22) the Eq. G.7 "formula for addition of velocities". That name fits better to the inverse of it, Eq. G.8.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
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...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top