Is the Biot-Savart Law reversible?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the reversibility of the Biot-Savart Law and its implications for the motion of charged particles in magnetic fields. Participants explore whether a magnetic field can induce motion in a charged particle, given that a moving charge creates a magnetic field. It is established that a static charge in a static magnetic field will not experience any force, thus remaining at rest. The conversation highlights the distinction between the creation of a magnetic field by a moving charge and the influence of an existing magnetic field on a charge. Ultimately, the consensus is that Biot-Savart Law describes the generation of magnetic fields by moving charges, not their motion in response to magnetic fields.
  • #31
Subhra said:
According to Biot-Savart Law if there be a charge in motion, it will create a magnetic field.

Yes. It creates its own magnetic field, it does not experience it itself.


If the motion be uniform, the magnetic field will be static, else dynamic.

Yes.


Now, if a charge particle be placed in a magnetic field, will it move?

Second charge will experience force only if it has velocity greater than zero.


To put it in another way, is the velocity of the charged particle dependent on the applied magnetic field?

You need to be asking about force/acceleration, not velocity really. Anyway, yes, and it also dependent on its own "initial" velocity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Subhra said:
Then tell me whether the magnetic field in Biot-Savart law is "static".

It is static. But this question doesn't have much to do with your previous question.
 
  • #33
carrz said:
Second charge will experience force only if it has velocity greater than zero.

So a stationary charged particle will not experience any force near a current element.
 
  • #34
Matterwave said:
It is static. But this question doesn't have much to do with your previous question.

So a charge in motion creates a static magnetic field. Now in this static field place a static charge and forget about the field. Look only a charge (creator of the magnetic field) in motion and a charge at rest and tell me whether the charge at rest will experience a force or not.
 
  • #35
Subhra said:
So a stationary charged particle will not experience any force near a current element.

B1= q1*v1/r^2, B2= q2*v2/r^2
F1= q1*v1 x B2, F2= q2*v2 x B1

Yes. That's what Lorentz force equation says, if v1 = 0 then F1 = 0. No force means no acceleration which means no change in velocity so it stays zero.

You can not invert Biot-Savart law like in the document you posted, because velocity is not an effect, it's a cause. Velocity of a charge is not influenced or caused by its own B field, which is what the second equation in your document suggests, so it's not true.
 
  • #36
Subhra said:
So a charge in motion creates a static magnetic field. Now in this static field place a static charge and forget about the field. Look only a charge (creator of the magnetic field) in motion and a charge at rest and tell me whether the charge at rest will experience a force or not.

The Biot-Savart law is valid for a current in a wire. Not for a single moving charge. A single moving charge will also have an electric field, which will accelerate other electric charges.
 
  • #37
Subhra said:
So a charge in motion creates a static magnetic field. Now in this static field place a static charge and forget about the field. Look only a charge (creator of the magnetic field) in motion and a charge at rest and tell me whether the charge at rest will experience a force or not.

It's clear from Lorenz force equation: F1= q1*v1 X B2

Any number multiplied by zero (v1 = 0) will be zero. Can you see?
 
  • #38
carrz said:
B1= q1*v1/r^2, B2= q2*v2/r^2
F1= q1*v1 x B2, F2= q2*v2 x B1

Yes. That's what Lorentz force equation says, if v1 = 0 then F1 = 0. No force means no acceleration which means no change in velocity so it stays zero.

You can not invert Biot-Savart law like in the document you posted, because velocity is not an effect, it's a cause. Velocity of a charge is not influenced or caused by its own B field, which is what the second equation in your document suggests, so it's not true.

What about the force of q2 (moving with v2) on q1(even if v1=0)?
 
  • #39
carrz said:
It's clear from Lorenz force equation: F1= q1*v1 X B2

Any number multiplied by zero (v1 = 0) will be zero. Can you see?

If v1=0, F1=0 from the above equation. There is no problem in it.

But if B2!=0, v2!=0. Then will the charge q2 exert a force on q1 or not?
 
  • #40
Subhra said:
What about the force of q2 (moving with v2) on q1(even if v1=0)?

F2 = q2*v2 x B1

But first you need to calculate B1 = q1*v1/r^2

So, if v1 = 0 then B1 = 0 and so F2 = 0.

Also, if v2 = 0 then F2 = 0 regardless of B1.
 
  • #41
Subhra said:
If v1=0, F1=0 from the above equation. There is no problem in it.

But if B2!=0, v2!=0. Then will the charge q2 exert a force on q1 or not?

F1 = q1*v1 x B2


B2 > 0 only if V2 > 0.

q1 will experience force relative to q2 only if both v1 > 0 and B2 > 0.

Just plug the numbers into equation and all this becomes obvious.
 
  • #42
carrz said:
F2 = q2*v2 x B1

But first you need to calculate B1 = q1*v1/r^2

So, if v1 = 0 then B1 = 0 and so F2 = 0.

Also, if v2 = 0 then F2 = 0 regardless of B1.

carrz said:
F1 = q1*v1 x B2B2 > 0 only if V2 > 0.

q1 will experience force relative to q2 only if both v1 > 0 and B2 > 0.

Just plug the numbers into equation and all this becomes obvious.

I think, you are focused on the magnetic force only. But a moving charge also has an electric field. This means if you have a magnetic field there should be an electric field associated with the particle causing the magnetic field.

Under this electric field, the rest charge should experience a force resulting a motion of the charge.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Subhra said:
I think, you are focused on the magnetic force only. But a moving charge also has an electric field. This means if you have a magnetic field there should be an electric field associated with the particle causing the magnetic field.

Under this electric field, the rest charge should experience a force resulting a motion of the charge.

Coulomb force can be calculate along with Lorentz force (depending on equation), but you can also calculate electric force vectors separately with Coulomb's law equation, then just add magnetic and electric force vectors together. I think it's better to separate them to see a problem more clearly.
 
  • #44
carrz said:
Coulomb force can be calculate along with Lorentz force (depending on equation), but you can also calculate electric force vectors separately with Coulomb's law equation, then just add magnetic and electric force vectors together. I think it's better to separate them to see a problem more clearly.

This is not my answer. However, it seems from your reply that the particle at rest will certainly move under a magnetic field.

You may argue that the motion is due to the electric field of the charged particle creating the magnetic field.

Now create the magnetic field using a permanent magnet and place a charge in the magnetic field of the magnet and answer whether the charge will move.
 
  • #45
Matterwave said:
The Biot-Savart law is valid for a current in a wire. Not for a single moving charge.

It's not true. See Heaviside's electrodynamics.

Matterwave said:
A single moving charge will also have an electric field, which will accelerate other electric charges.

Whether it is a single moving charge or a current in a wire, it will create a magnetic field which will move a stationary charge.

This means there should be a mathematical way to describe v=v(B).
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Subhra said:
This is not my answer. However, it seems from your reply that the particle at rest will certainly move under a magnetic field.

You may argue that the motion is due to the electric field of the charged particle creating the magnetic field.

Biot-Savart law has nothing to do with electric forces and you haven't mentioned electric fields until just now. Therefore, we were all ignoring electric force because your questions were vague and and it would only complicate explanation.


Now create the magnetic field using a permanent magnet and place a charge in the magnetic field of the magnet and answer whether the charge will move.

Why don't you answer? You know from before there will be no magnetic force. But you said nothing about electric force, so I assume the magnet is electrically neutral, and so there would also be no any electric force on the charge and thus it will not move.

What part could you not answer yourself?
 
  • #47
Subhra said:
It's not true. See Heaviside's electrodynamics.



Whether it is a single moving charge or a current in a wire, it will create a magnetic field which will move a stationary charge.

This means there should be a mathematical way to describe v=v(B).

A current carrying wire is still electrically neutral. A single point charge by definition cannot be electrically neutral.

What you are calling the "Biot and Savart law" is one half of a set of approximate equations where v<<c for which this half resembles the actual Biot Savart law. The other half deals with the electric field, which is NOT accounted for by the Biot Savart law.

But you keep repeating your question about putting a stationary charge in a static magnetic field (and only a static magnetic field). This question has been answered MANY times already in this thread. The charge WILL NOT begin to move.
 
  • #48
Subhra said:
Interesting Answer. By the way, in this case the situation is magnetostatic. Furthermore, I have assumed only the qualitative argument (If there be any motion of a charge, there will be a magnetic field)
But that is already not magnetostatic. As a charge moves it is a time varying current which produces a time varying magnetic field which is described by the Lienard Wiechert and not by Biot Savart.

Subhra said:
and tried to know whether the counter argument i.e. if there be any magnetic field, there will be a motion of a charge is true.
I am not certain about the invertibility of Biot Savart (I think it is not invertible, but I am not certain). However, if it is not invertible then that means that you can specify some additional constraints such as minimizing total current density or something similar and iteratively calculate a current distribution to produce a given field.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Subhra said:
The question is very simple. I repeat:

According to Biot-Savart Law if there be a charge in motion, it will create a magnetic field.
If a charge is in motion then it will create a magnetic field, but that is NOT "according to Biot-Savart". A charge in motion creates a time varying magnetic field so Biot Savart does not apply. The Lienard Wiechert potentials describe the magnetic field of a moving charge.

What Biot-Savart says is that if there is a steady (non-time varying) current then it will create a steady (non-time varying) magnetic field.

Subhra said:
If the motion be uniform, the magnetic field will be static, else dynamic. The nature of the magnetic field is not important here.
Neither of these statements are true. Uniform motion of a charge creates a dynamic magnetic field. The nature of the field is critical for determining which equations to use, if it is magnetostatic then you can use the simplified Biot Savart else you must use more complicated equations.

Subhra said:
Now, if a charge particle be placed in a magnetic field, will it move?
This has already been answered: no, if it starts with 0 velocity then it will experience 0 force and therefore 0 acceleration.
 
  • #50
Subhra said:
So a charge in motion creates a static magnetic field.
No, it does not! A charge in motion creates a time-varying magnetic field given by the Lienard Wiechert potentials.
 
  • #51
Subhra said:
It's not true. See Heaviside's electrodynamics.
It is true. Heaviside's electrodynamics includes more than the Biot Savart law.

Subhra said:
Whether it is a single moving charge or a current in a wire, it will create a magnetic field which will move a stationary charge.
A single moving charge and a current in a wire are substantially different situations. A single moving charge has a time varying E-field and a time varying B-field and cannot be described by the Biot Savart law (a stationary charge will experience a net force due to the moving charge). A steady current in a wire has a static B-field but no E-field and can be described by the Biot Savart law (a stationary charge will not experience a net force due to the current).
 
Last edited:
  • #52
DaleSpam said:
No, it does not! A charge in motion creates a time-varying magnetic field given by the Lienard Wiechert potentials.

According to Biot-Savart law magnitude of magnetic field varies only with velocity, so if velocity is constant magnetic field stays constant. Why are you bringing in relativity when the question is explicitly about Biot-Savart law?


Can you explain how magnetic field varies when a charge is moving with constant velocity? Is it the magnitude that grows stronger and weaker, or something else, and what is this variation relative to?
 
  • #53
DaleSpam said:
A single moving charge and a current in a wire are substantially different situations. A single moving charge has a time varying E-field and a time varying B-field and cannot be described by the Biot Savart law (a stationary charge will experience a net force due to the moving charge). A steady current in a wire has a static B-field but no E-field and can be described by the Biot Savart law (a stationary charge will not experience a net force due to the current).

The ampere unit is defined by Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force, and their electric current equations are just integrals of their point charge equations, so it must be the same situation or the equations would not work and our unit of ampere would be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampère's_force_law

81671bb81797eccc999acb35ff4fbfd6.png



That is simply integral of Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force for a single moving charge:

6bb1d60bd48bb83ace488aa5e7b87cdf.png


a38581307dbd0ad96e804145e9e7b288.png



These two equations apply to free electrons, electron beams, and electric wires just the same.
 
  • #54
carrz said:
According to Biot-Savart law magnitude of magnetic field varies only with velocity, so if velocity is constant magnetic field stays constant. Why are you bringing in relativity when the question is explicitly about Biot-Savart law?
Huh? I am not bringing in relativity. The Lienard Wiechert potential applies for all speeds, and the deviations from Biot Savart and Coulomb's law are significant even for non relativistic speeds. It was even developed prior to relativity.

The B field varies because the distance to the moving charge varies, and the E field varies for the same reason. Furthermore, because of the temporal variation the magnitude and direction of the field differs from that predicted by Biot Savart.

carrz said:
Can you explain how magnetic field varies when a charge is moving with constant velocity? Is it the magnitude that grows stronger and weaker, or something else, and what is this variation relative to?
When the charge is far away there is little field. As the charge approaches and passes the field increases, changes direction, and decreases.
 
  • #55
I brought in relativity for the special case of a uniformly moving charge, because it's much simpler to calculate the electromagnetic field with help of a Lorentz boost. Let's do that. In the lab frame (unprimed coordinates (x^{\mu})=(ct,\vec{x})) the particle moves with a constant velocity \vec{v}=v \vec{e}_x. We want to evaluate the field in this reference frame.

To that end we look at the situation from the reference frame, where the particle is at rest (primed coordinates (x&#039;^{\mu}=(c t&#039;,\vec{x}&#039;)) at the origin. There the electromagnetic field is simply an electrostatic Coulomb field, which reads (in Heaviside-Lorentz units)
\vec{E}&#039;(t&#039;,\vec{x}&#039;)=\frac{q}{4 \pi} \frac{\vec{x}&#039;}{r&#039;^3}, \quad \vec{B}&#039;(t&#039;,\vec{x}&#039;)=0.
Now we use the transformation of the space-time coordinates and the em. field under the Lorentz boost
c t&#039;=\gamma(c t-v x/c), \quad x&#039;=\gamma(x- v t), \quad y&#039;=y, \quad z&#039;=z.
E_x(t,\vec{x})=E_x&#039;(t&#039;,\vec{x}&#039;)=\frac{q}{4 \pi} \frac{x&#039;}{r&#039;^3}=\frac{q}{4 \pi} \gamma \frac{x-v t}{[\gamma^2(x-v t)^2+y^2 +z^2]^{3/2}},
E_y(t,\vec{x})=\gamma E_y&#039;(t&#039;,\vec{x}&#039;)=\frac{q}{4 \pi} \gamma \frac{y}{[\gamma^2(x-v t)^2+y^2 +z^2]^{3/2}},
E_z(t,\vec{x})=\gamma E_z&#039;(t&#039;,\vec{x}&#039;)=\frac{q}{4 \pi} \gamma \frac{z}{[\gamma^2(x-v t)^2+y^2 +z^2]^{3/2}}
or in three-vector notation
\vec{E}(t,\vec{x})=\frac{q}{4 \pi} \frac{\gamma}{[\gamma^2(x-v t)^2+y^2 +z^2]^{3/2}} \begin{pmatrix}<br /> x-v t \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}.<br />
The magnetic field is given by
\vec{B}=\vec{\beta} \times \vec{E}=\frac{q}{4 \pi} \frac{\gamma}{[\gamma^2(x-v t)^2+y^2 +z^2]^{3/2}} \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 0 \\ -z \\ y \end{pmatrix}.<br />
Of course, you get the same result by using the four-current
\rho(t,\vec{x})=q \delta(x-v t) \delta(y) \delta(z), \quad \vec{j}=q \vec{v} \delta(x-v t) \delta(y) \delta(z)
in the retarded (Lienard-Wiechert) potentials and taking the according derivatives
\vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{A}-\vec{\nabla} A^0, \quad \vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}<br /> or directly the retarded Jefimenko integrals for the field.<br /> <br /> You <b>must not</b> use the naive Biot-Savart Law for the magnetic field, because the current density is <b>not stationary</b>, because it&#039;s obviously time dependent!
 
  • #56
vanhees71 said:
You must not use the naive Biot-Savart Law for the magnetic field, because the current density is not stationary, because it's obviously time dependent!

Biot-Savart law applies exactly to "not-stationary" charges. We sure use it to define the ampere unit, which is calibration reference for many if not most of our electronic instruments and components. We are already using it, a lot. Do you believe there is even any difference when velocities are below the speed of light?
 
  • #57
DaleSpam said:
Huh? I am not bringing in relativity. The Lienard Wiechert potential applies for all speeds, and the deviations from Biot Savart and Coulomb's law are significant even for non relativistic speeds. It was even developed prior to relativity.

The question is explicitly about Biot-Savart law. If it was an exam I don't think your answer would earn any points. But since we are already talking about it, what is the deviation of Biot Savart or Coulomb's law for, say velocities of 2/3 the speed of light?


The B field varies because the distance to the moving charge varies, and the E field varies for the same reason. Furthermore, because of the temporal variation the magnitude and direction of the field differs from that predicted by Biot Savart.

Only its position varies, not its absolute magnitude, which is measured relative to its origin and not relative to some arbitrary point or another charge. If you want to talk about what some other charge experiences in the field of the first charge, then of course "B field varies" relative to that second charge, it varies inverse-proportionally to the square of the distance. That's exactly what Biot-Savart laws say as well, the only difference is semantics.
 
  • #58
carrz said:
Biot-Savart law applies exactly to "not-stationary" charges. We sure use it to define the ampere unit, which is calibration reference for many if not most of our electronic instruments and components. We are already using it, a lot. Do you believe there is even any difference when velocities are below the speed of light?

The Biot-Savart Law is valid only for stationary fields. Electromagnetism is a local relativistic classical field theory, and there is no value in not treating it as such. A lot of apparent difficulties, particularly with Faraday's Law simply vanish when doing so. E.g., the homopolar generator becomes very simple to understand when treated relativistically.

The Biot-Savart Law is a special case of the Jefimenko equations for stationary charge-current distributions. That's it. The definition of the Ampere refers to a static situation. So there is no contradiction here.
 
  • #59
vanhees71 said:
The Biot-Savart Law is valid only for stationary fields. Electromagnetism is a local relativistic classical field theory, and there is no value in not treating it as such. A lot of apparent difficulties, particularly with Faraday's Law simply vanish when doing so. E.g., the homopolar generator becomes very simple to understand when treated relativistically.

The Biot-Savart Law is a special case of the Jefimenko equations for stationary charge-current distributions. That's it. The definition of the Ampere refers to a static situation. So there is no contradiction here.

Biot-Savart law applies exactly to "not-stationary" charges, that's why there is 'velocity' in the equation, the magnitude of magnetic field depends on it. Electrons are not static when two parallel wires repel or attract, they move quite a bit, and the faster they go, the greater is magnetic field they cause. Biot-Savart law and Lorenz force equations for point charges apply to free electrons, electron beams, and electric currents just the same. How would you like me to prove that to you?
 
  • #60
carrz said:
Biot-Savart law applies exactly to "not-stationary" charges. We sure use it to define the ampere unit, which is calibration reference for many if not most of our electronic instruments and components. We are already using it, a lot.
When the Biot Savart law is used in this context the current density is constant wrt time, so it applies. I am not saying that it is never valid but rather that it only applies to magnetostatic situations, which a moving point charge is not but a wire with constant current is.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K