Magnetic Field Due To Moving Charges: An Unsound Conclusion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a friend's confusing conclusion regarding the magnetic field produced by moving charges, specifically using Biot-Savart's law. The friend claims that while charge q1 exerts a force on charge q2, the opposite force from q2 to q1 is zero due to an incorrect interpretation of angles in their calculations. The angle used for q1 is 90 degrees, leading to a finite force, while the angle for q2 is 180 degrees, resulting in zero force. This reasoning contradicts Newton's third law, which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The conclusion drawn by the friend is deemed flawed due to the misapplication of angles in their analysis.
Sleek
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This is not exactly a homework problem, but something extra posed to me by one of my friends, who seems to have derived a rather confusing conclusion.

A diagram (which they had) and I've reproduced precisely is given below.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/701/radiusju7.th.jpg

q1 and q2 are two charges, v1 and v2 being their respective velocities. The line connecting the two charge (r) is what they call the radius vector.

Homework Equations



B=v \times \frac{E}{c^2} (Biot-Savart's Law)

The Attempt at a Solution



They first consider the charge q1 and use the Biot-Savart's law to find a finite value of force exerted by q1 on q2. The angle theta according to them is the angle between the direction of velocity of q1 to radius vector, in this case 90.

Then they find the force exerted by q2 on q1. The angle comes out to be 180, the sine of which is 0. Thus the force comes out to be 0. Thus they conclude that Newton's law that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" has been proved false, as q1 exerts force on q2 but q2 doesn't exert force on q1.

My views are, they way they're taking the angles may be wrong. But I was unable to find a proper reference to it, and I'm still scouring through websites to get more details.

Secondly, their conclusion seems to be a little fishy. This doubt has been spinning my mind, and I though of asking it here, so that this doubt can be cleared.

Thanks,
Sleek.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The force on q1 by q2 is the opposite (multiply by -1) of the force by q2 on q1. The way they have taken the angles is wrong. This obviously follows from Newton's third law.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top