Is Coulomb's law valid in a non-inertial frame?

AI Thread Summary
Coulomb's law does not hold in a non-inertial frame, even if charges remain static and the observer does not move. In such frames, the Coulomb force field becomes distorted due to fictitious forces. Specifically, under constant proper acceleration, radiation from static charges is not observed, but the field's distortion invalidates Coulomb's law. Therefore, the conclusion is that the expected Coulomb force will not be experienced as it would in an inertial frame. The discussion highlights the limitations of classical physics in non-inertial contexts.
xxxyyy
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
Hi,
I was wondering, if the charges do not move in a non inertial frame and I don't move too in this frame, will I see the same Coulomb force, some fictitious forces and radiation coming from these static charges?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A.T. said:
just a distorted Coulomb force field
Note that the distorted field means that Coulomb’s law is not valid. So the short but correct answer to the OP’s question is “no”.
 
Susskind (in The Theoretical Minimum, volume 1, pages 203-205) writes the Lagrangian for the magnetic field as ##L=\frac m 2(\dot x^2+\dot y^2 + \dot z^2)+ \frac e c (\dot x A_x +\dot y A_y +\dot z A_z)## and then calculates ##\dot p_x =ma_x + \frac e c \frac d {dt} A_x=ma_x + \frac e c(\frac {\partial A_x} {\partial x}\dot x + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial y}\dot y + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial z}\dot z)##. I have problems with the last step. I might have written ##\frac {dA_x} {dt}...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...

Similar threads

Back
Top