Magnetic field at relativistic speed

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between magnetism and electricity, particularly in the context of two electrons traveling at relativistic speeds (0.99c) in deep space. Participants explore the implications of special relativity on the forces acting between the electrons, including the magnetic and electrostatic forces, and how these forces affect their trajectories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the actual value of the magnetic force relative to the electrostatic force when applying relativistic corrections, questioning whether it remains at 0.9801 times the electrostatic repulsion.
  • There is discussion about the transformation of forces in different inertial frames, with references to the Lorentz factor (gamma) and its effect on the forces experienced by the electrons.
  • Participants debate whether the trajectories of the electrons will bend due to the mutual magnetic field and if this bending compensates for their divergence caused by electrostatic repulsion.
  • Some contributions suggest that the electric force will always exceed the magnetic force, leading to a divergence of the electrons in all frames of reference.
  • There are references to the Lorentz force law and its applicability in relativistic contexts, with some participants expressing uncertainty about the calculations involved.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of considering the rest frame of the electrons to understand the forces acting on them, noting that in their rest frame, only electrostatic repulsion is present.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the effects of relativistic speeds on the forces between the electrons. There is no consensus on the exact values of the forces or the resulting trajectories, with multiple competing perspectives remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for transformations of electric and magnetic fields between inertial frames, indicating that the discussion is limited by the complexity of these transformations and the assumptions made about the system.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of physics, particularly those focused on electromagnetism and special relativity, as well as individuals exploring the implications of relativistic effects on particle interactions.

  • #31
alba said:
I am baffled, ibis said I don't need mass. Now, consider the 2 particles in LHC: mass is 7 times greater, does A feel the increased mass (through gravity) of B, even though it is at rest in A's frame.
you don't need mass if you're only concerned about force and not acceleration.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
alba said:
I am baffled, ibis said I don't need mass. Now, consider the 2 particles in LHC: mass is 7 times greater, does A feel the increased mass (through gravity) of B, even though it is at rest in A's frame.
You have just found another of the many reasons why thinking in terms of mass increasing with speed just creates confusion. If you haven't already read this Insights article, do so now - the mass that you plug into Newton's ##F=Gm_1m_2/r^2## has nothing do with the speed of anything.
 
  • #33
greswd said:
you don't need mass if you're only concerned about force and not acceleration.
I'd just like to know what is the ratio Fm/FE after the SR corrections, and the final outcome, that is the rate at which A and B will diverge. After 32 posts , still no clue!
 
  • #34
alba said:
I'd just like to know what is the ratio Fm/FE after the SR corrections, and the final outcome, that is the rate at which A and B will diverge. After 32 posts , still no clue!
google transverse mass.

that will give you the transverse acceleration
 
  • #35
greswd said:
thats way too complicated for the OP
But it's the most simple way!
 
  • #36
vanhees71 said:
But it's the most simple way!
but he won't be able to understand what he's reading!
 
  • #37
alba said:
I'd just like to know what is the ratio Fm/FE after the SR corrections, and the final outcome, that is the rate at which A and B will diverge. After 32 posts , still no clue!

I found some simple formulas, so now I will calculate the final speed of two electrons originally 1 cm apart and at rest, ignoring relativistic effects, then I will transform that result to another frame:

(k is Coulomb's constant, q is electrons charge, r is distance, m is electron's mass)

potential energy of the system:
$$ E_s = \frac {k*q*q}{r} $$

kinetic energy of one electron:
$$E_k=\frac{E_s}{2}$$

velocity of one electron:

$$ v=\sqrt{\frac{2E_k}{m}} = \sqrt{ \frac{E_s}{m}}= \sqrt{ \frac{\frac {k*q*q}{r}}{m}}=159 m/s $$So the electrons move apart at speed 318 m/s. Now we use this system as a clock: When the system has grown by 318 m, then one second has passed.

Now we observe that same clock from another frame, in which frame the clock moves at speed 0.99 c. The clock ticks like this: When system has grown by: $$ \frac{318 m}{\gamma} $$ then one second has passed. Because that's how time dilation of clocks works.
 
  • #38
greswd said:
So the electrons move apart at speed 318 m/s. .
Are you sure speed is so low? I imagine it is over one kilometer in a second
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Ok, let's analyze the problem in #1. I was a bit too quick with my posting on the force, because here you need not only the force but also its split into electric and magnetic components. So we have to do a bit more more work, but we should do it in a manifest covariant way. In the following I set ##c=1## and work in Heaviside-Lorentz units, which are most adequate for relativistic covariant formulations of electrodynamics ;-). In the following I use the four-velocity of the particle (proton in the example) ##u^{\mu} = \mathrm{d} x^{\mu}/\mathrm{d} \tau=p^{\mu}/m## and the west-coast convention for the metric, ##(\eta_{\mu \nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)##.

Of course, the most simple frame is the rest frame of the two protons, which we call ##\Sigma'##. First we consider the electromagnetic field of one of the protons, which we put for simplicity in the origin of the reference frame. It's world line is given by ##(x^{\prime \mu})=(\tau,0,0,0)## and thus ##(u^{\prime \mu})=(1,0,0,0)##. The four-potential of its field is of course the static Coulomb potential (in Lorenz gauge):
$$(A^{\prime \mu})=\frac{q}{4 \pi r'} (1,0,0,0)=\frac{1}{4 \pi r'} (u^{\mu}).$$
Now in the frame ##\Sigma##, where this proton moves with velocity ##\vec{v}=v \vec{e}_1## along the common ##x^1## axes of ##\Sigma'## and ##\Sigma##, the four-potential is
$$A^{\mu} ={(\Lambda^{-1})^{\mu}}_{\nu} A^{\prime \nu}, \quad x^{\prime \mu}={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu} x^{\nu}.$$
The Lorentz matrix ##{\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu}## is given in #27. The result of the transformation is
$$A^{\mu}=\frac{q}{4 \pi r'} u^{\mu}=\frac{\gamma q}{4 \pi r'} \begin{pmatrix}1 \\ v \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad r'=\sqrt{(x^1-v t)^2+(x^2)^2 + (x^3)^2}.$$
Now, written in conventional (1+3) form the electromagnetic field components in this frame are given by
$$\vec{E}=-\vec{\nabla} A^0-\partial_t \vec{A} = \frac{\gamma q}{4 \pi r^{\prime 3}} \begin{pmatrix} x^1-v t \\ x^2 \\ x^3\end{pmatrix}$$
and
$$\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{A}=\vec{v} \times \vec{E}.$$
The force on the 2nd proton, whose world line is given by ##y^{\prime \mu}=(tau,0,L,0)## with ##L=1 \;\text{cm}##. It's four-velocity is ##\tilde{u}^{\prime \mu}=(1,0,0,0)## and thus in the frame ##\Sigma## it's ##\tilde{u}^{\mu}=\gamma (1,v,0,0)##. From this you get for the spatical part of the electric and magnetic forces at time ##t=0##
$$\vec{K}_E=q \tilde{u}^0 \vec{E}=q \gamma \vec{E}=\frac{\gamma^2 q^2}{4 \pi L^2} \vec{e}_2$$
and
$$\vec{K}_B=q \tilde{\vec{u}} \times \vec{B} = q \gamma \vec{v} \times (\vec{v} \times \vec{E})=-\frac{q^2 v^2 \gamma^2}{4 \pi L^2} \vec{e}_2.$$
Note that the total Minkowski force is
$$\vec{K}_{\text{tot}}=\vec{K}_E + \vec{K}_M=\frac{q^2}{4 \pi L^2} \vec{e}_2,$$
which immideately follows from the Lorentz transformation of the corresponding four vector, which stays unchanged in this case, because it has only a ##x^2## component in ##\Sigma'## and thus, via the Lorentz boost in ##x^1## direction also in ##\Sigma##.

For the ratio of the magnetic to the electric force parts you get ##v^2##, i.e., for this simple example the non-relativistic approximation is exact (because the additional ##\gamma## factor of the exact transformation cancels in the ratio).
 
  • #40
vanhees71 said:
For the ratio of the magnetic to the electric force parts you get ##v^2##, i.e., for this simple example the non-relativistic approximation is exact (because the additional ##\gamma## factor of the exact transformation cancels in the ratio).
...so, what is the distance between A and B in the two frames after one millisecond? The net force in the CM mass is 2.3*10^-24/2 N, what is the net force acting on B in the rest frame? That is the question
 
  • #41
vanhees71 said:
Ok, let's analyze the problem in #1. .
Is the electric force affected by motion? does A affect B in the same way it affects a charge D at rest at 1 cm from A while is it passing?
 
  • #42
alba said:
Are you sure speed is so low? I imagine it is over one kilometer in a second

I have a strong feeling that this is one of the rare cases when I managed to calculate something correctly.

An electron was accelerated by an electric field created by the smallest charge that exists, at macroscopic distance. Still the electron reached speed 159 m/s.
 
  • #43
alba said:
so, what is the distance between A and B in the two frames after one millisecond?

After one millisecond according to which clock? A clock that is at rest relative to the initial position of the electrons, or a clock that is moving at .9c relative to that initial position?
 
  • #44
Nugatory said:
After one millisecond according to which clock? A clock that is at rest relative to the initial position of the electrons, or a clock that is moving at .9c relative to that initial position?
1/1000 s in the rest/lab frame means 1/7000 s in the moving frame. Consider LHC, for example:
c1ggS.png

http:// http://i.stack.imgur.com/c1ggS.png

In the AB frame Fe = 2.3*10^-24N and time is 1/7000 s. In the C (lab) frame time is 1/ 7 = 1/1000 but mass is 7 time bigger, so they compensate each other in the impulse J = Ft.. On the other hand, besides the Fe we have a contrasting Fm = .98 Fe, which reduces the latter to 10^-26N, I cannot find a way to make the distance between A and B the same in both frames, be it 159*2 after a second or a few centimeters after 1/1000 s
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
jartsa said:
I have a strong feeling that this is one of the rare cases when I managed to calculate something correctly.

An electron was accelerated by an electric field created by the smallest charge that exists, at macroscopic distance. Still the electron reached speed 159 m/s.
I was talking about distance, jartsa,
Can you show me how to find the distance between A and B after a period of time? While you are at it , try 1/7000 s
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K