Is the Lorentz force conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kolahal Bhattacharya
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lorentz
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the Lorentz force is conservative, highlighting that the force is defined as F=q(E+v cross B). It is noted that if the electric and magnetic fields are time-dependent, the Lorentz force does not derive from a potential, thus being non-conservative. The Coulomb force, however, is conservative in electrostatic conditions. Participants express confusion about the magnetic component of the force and its implications for conservativeness, particularly questioning why magnetic forces cannot be expressed in the same way as conservative forces. The main takeaway is that time-dependence of fields plays a crucial role in determining the conservativeness of the Lorentz force.
Kolahal Bhattacharya
Messages
133
Reaction score
1
Lorentz force is F=q(E+v cross .............(1)
We seem to be interested only in B[=A(q/r^2)(v' cross ].What about E?Is it an electrostatic field?I suppose not.If not,then should be time dependent and del cross E=-(d/dt)B
Taking line integral of (1),W=integral(a to F.dr
=integral(a to E.dr + 0
Does this mean F(mag) is conservative?
if a and b are the same,Will W=0?
in that case will Lorentz force be conservative?
however, i saw in Griffiths's Quantum Mechanics that magnetic forces cannot be expressed like (-dV/dx) like other conservative forces.
what is the physics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
please don't mind the b's are missing.
 
The Lorentz force

\vec{F}=q\vec{E}+q\vec{v}\times\vec{B} (1)

generalizes the magnetostatics and the electrostatics forces, with the latter being the Coulomb force. If the fields depend on time, which means the electrostatic and magnetostatic regimes are not valid anymore, then (1) is not conservative. It doesn't derive from any potential. But in the electrostatics, it's well known that the Coulomb force is conservative, since it derives from the Coulomb potential.

So the main idea is "time-dependence of fields".

Daniel.
 
Thank you,daniel.I got your point.
But still unclear is that q(v cross B) part.Anyway F(mag)=q(v cross B) is zero even if the field is time dependent.So,can it be conservative?Actually,I am not sure that curl of B(t)=0 in that case.
what about the QM book confusion?Why magnetic forces cannot be expressed as F=-dV/dx like other conservative forces.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top