Lorentz Transform of Radial & Longitudinal Dependent Magnetic Field

matt_crouch
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
Basically I am trying to lorentz transform the magnetic field along θ of a bunch particles which have a gaussian distribution to the radial electric field. However the magnetic field in θ is dependent on the longitiudinal distribution.
Now initially i thought we would just use the standard LT,

x=x'
y=y'
s'=/gamma (s-βct).
Now someone suggested to me that infact the transform will be non trivial when a longitudinal dependent radial field is perpendicular to the boost axis.
Can someone suggest some literature that would point me in the right direction?

Just for reference the field follows as,

B_{\theta}=Const \times r^(-1/2)e^{-r^{2}/2*sigma_{r}^{2}} e^{-s^{2}/2\sigma_{s}^{2}}

Sorry i am not sure how to make it latex
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to Lorentz transform the B vector also. This is described in advanced EM books.
 
matt_crouch said:
B_{\theta}=Const \times r^(-1/2)e^{-r^{2}/2*sigma_{r}^{2}} e^{-s^{2}/2\sigma_{s}^{2}}

Sorry i am not sure how to make it latex
Put a double-dollar before and after
$$B_{\theta}=Const \times r^(-1/2)e^{-r^{2}/2*sigma_{r}^{2}} e^{-s^{2}/2\sigma_{s}^{2}}$$
Then correct the errors
$$B_{\theta}=\mbox{Const} \times r^{-1/2}e^{-r^{2}/2 \sigma_{r}^{2}} e^{-s^{2}/2\sigma_{s}^{2}}$$
...if that's what you meant.
 
matt_crouch said:
Now someone suggested to me that infact the transform will be non trivial when a longitudinal dependent radial field is perpendicular to the boost axis.
Can someone suggest some literature that would point me in the right direction?

Maybe this will help:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node123.html

which presents the Lorentz transformation for E and B fields. To see the derivation, you have to work backwards through the preceding pages.
 
Ok thanks.. I'll have a look through
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top