Magnetic Force from Current Loops: Relativistic Treatment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relativistic treatment of magnetic forces generated by current loops, particularly in the context of deriving magnetic effects from electrostatics and special relativity. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, mathematical representations, and implications of Lorentz transformations on magnetic fields and forces.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the derivation of magnetic forces from current-carrying wires, questioning whether similar derivations exist for wire loops or charged particles in circular motion.
  • One participant refers to Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics," suggesting that the Coulomb force law does not transform consistently under Lorentz transformations, implying the necessity of incorporating magnetic fields to maintain covariance.
  • Another participant notes that a straight wire can be viewed as a segment of a larger loop, prompting further exploration of the relationship between straight wires and loops in magnetic field generation.
  • A participant presents a model involving uniform linear charge densities in circular motion, detailing the construction of four-vectors for these charge densities and the resultant magnetic field near the center of the loop.
  • The same participant describes the effects of Lorentz transformation on the charge densities, highlighting variations in charge density around the loop due to relativistic effects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Lorentz transformations for electromagnetic forces, with some supporting the necessity of magnetic fields for consistency while others explore specific models without reaching a consensus on the broader implications.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the complexity of transforming forces between frames, the dependence on the definitions of charge densities, and the unresolved mathematical steps in the derivation of magnetic fields from current loops.

ieatsk8boards
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
There are plenty of examples where someone derives the magnetic force from a current carrying wire on a moving charged particle by looking at the frame of the particle and finding that the current has Lorentz contracted in such a way as to produce an electric field in an otherwise neutral wire. They then say that magnetism can be deduced from just electrostatics and SR.

Has anybody ever seen this done for a wire loop? Or for, say, an electron orbiting a nucleus a la crude model for magnetic dipole?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My understanding, based on some remarks by Jackson in "Classical Electrodynamics" (that I'd have to hunt down to quote exactly), expressed simply (I hope it's not oversimple, but won't guarantee that) is that you can't sensibly assume that the only force between charges is the 1/r^2 coulomb force and get consistent results when you apply the Lorentz transform to transform the forces to a different frame. The details of a formal derivation would involve knowing how forces are "supposed" to transform, which would require a bit of a diversion into 4-vectors and tensor transformation laws and the idea of covariance, which seems to loos a lot of the audience :(.

The magnetic field is one of the simplest ways of "fixing" the coulomb force law (by adding additional force terms) to get a force law that transforms properly via the Lorentz transform.

A more technical way of making what is supposed to be the same point: The lorenz force law F = q(E + vxB) is covariant, the coulomb force law F = q/r^2 is not covariant.

So something has to be added to the electric field to make electromagnetism consistint with the Lorentz transform, the simplest thing to add is just what Maxwell's equations add, the magnetic field.
 
When we derive the magnetic force from a current carrying straight wire, the "straight wire" is actually a small segment of a large loop, isn't it?
 
Thanks for that bcrowell, that was a useful thread.

This is what I came up with:
Circular loop-page1.jpg


I bent a uniform linear charge density in a circle such that each charge is experiencing uniform circular motion. Two, actually, a positive one going clockwise, and a negative one going counter clockwise. Thus, the total current is 2 λ v in the CW direction.

Then, I wanted to represent this relativistically, so I built a four vector for both charge densities. Normally, they would be represented by Jα, but since these are linear charge densities, I use Iα:

$$I_{+}^{\alpha}=\lambda^{+}\left(c,-v\sin\phi,v\cos\phi,0\right)$$ and $$I_{-}^{\alpha}=-\lambda^{+}\left(c,v\sin\phi,-v\cos\phi,0\right)$$ which can be combined to find $$I_{tot}^{\alpha}=I_{+}^{\alpha}+I_{-}^{\alpha}= 2\lambda^+ v\left(0,-\sin\phi, \cos \phi,0\right)$$.

Near the center of the loop, close to the axis, the magnetic field is given by ##B=\frac{\mu_0 I}{2r}## with ##I=2\lambda^{+}v##. The zero in the first term of the four-vector shows that there is no net charge density, and thus no electric field anywhere.

What does this loop look like when boosted in the +x-direction (to the right in the figure) at speed ##u##? Simply perform the Lorentz transform ##L^{\alpha}_{\beta}I^{\beta}_{tot}## to obtain

$$I_{tot}^{' \alpha}=2\lambda^{+}v(\beta_{u}\gamma_{u}\sin\phi,\gamma_{u}\sin\phi, v\cos\phi,0)$$.

Looking at this carefully, we identify ##\lambda^{'}=\frac{I^{'0}_{tot}}{c}=\frac{2\lambda u v \gamma_u}{c^2}\sin\phi##. The ##\sin\phi## makes it so there is a varying amount of charge density that increases to a maximum at the bottom and top of the loop.

Any comments would be appreciated, but as this was ages ago I expect most people have moved on.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K