Magneto-static force and Newton's 3rd Law

  • Thread starter Pushoam
  • Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Law
11 replies · 2K views · last reply
Pushoam
Messages
961
Reaction score
53

Homework Statement


Show with an example whether Magnetic Force follows Newton's 3rd Law.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Let's consider the following system at time t.
Diagram of two charges q1 and q2 on a horizontal line, with a coordinate axis set showing z up and x to the right. Arrow v(z) points up from q1 and arrow v(x) points right from q2.

##\vec B ## due to moving q1 at q2 i.e. ## \vec B_1 ## is along ## \hat y ## direction.
So, the force on the q2 is ## \vec F_{on~q2} = q_2 v B_1 \hat z ##

Taking q2 = q1, it's clear that the strength of magnetic field due to q2 at q1 i.e. B_2 is very small compared to B_1.
So, it's clear that magneto - static force doesn't follow Newton's 3rd Law.This results because both magnetic field due to a moving charge and the magnetic force acting on a moving charge are perpendicular to its velocity.
Is this correct?
 
Pushoam said:
Let's consider the following system at time t.
View attachment 208683
##\vec B ## due to moving q1 at q2 i.e. ## \vec B_1 ## is along ## \hat y ## direction.
So, the force on the q2 is ## \vec F_{on~q2} = q_2 v B_1 \hat z ##

Taking q2 = q1, it's clear that the strength of magnetic field due to q2 at q1 i.e. B_2 is very small compared to B_1.
So, it's clear that magneto - static force doesn't follow Newton's 3rd Law.
Yes, that's right.

This results because both magnetic field due to a moving charge and the magnetic force acting on a moving charge are perpendicular to its velocity.
Is this correct?
Yes, along with the fact that "the strength of magnetic field due to q2 at q1 i.e. B_2 is very small compared to B_1".
 
TSny said:
the fact that "the strength of magnetic field due to q2 at q1 i.e. B_2 is very small compared to B_1".

Hello ,

I can see how the direction of forces being exerted on each other are different .

But how are you and the OP concluding that the strength of magnetic field B2 is very small compared to B1 ? Assuming charges are of equal magnitudes , I am not able to see how field strengths are being compared . Is their some implicit assumption ?
 
The B-field of charge 1 at the location of charge 2 is much stronger than the field of charge 2 at the location of charge 1. In fact the B- field of 2 at the location of 1 is zero.

See for example the following (which neglects relativistic effects)

 
As depicted in the OP q1 is moving with speed v1 along +z and q2 is moving with speed v2 along +x axis .

B1 (due to q1 ) = ##\frac{\mu}{4 \pi r^2}qv_1sin\theta_1 ##

B2 (due to q2 ) = ##\frac{\mu}{4 \pi r^2}qv_2sin\theta_2 ##

Which of the factors make B1 stronger than B2 ?
 
Strictly speaking, you cannot use Biot - Savart law to calculate magnetic field due to a moving charged particle as the current is not steady.
See the following in the Griffith's Electrodynamics book,
Textbook page showing the Biot-Savart law for surface current K and volume current J, followed by a note about a moving point charge and equation 5.43 for B(r) = mu0 q v x r-hat / (4 pi r^2).

Printed book page 228, Chapter 5 Magnetostatics, text stating a point charge does not constitute a steady current and the Biot-Savart law only holds for steady currents, so it does not correctly determine the field.

Text footnote 11 from a physics textbook: "I say this loud and clear to emphasize the point of principle; actually, Eq. 5.43 is approximately right for nonrelativistic charges (v << c), under conditions where retardation can be neglected (see Ex. 10.4)."


In case of calculating B2 at the position of q1 using your approach and considering griffith's footnote 11, ##\theta_ 2 ## ( which is angle between ## \vec v_2 ## and ## \vec r_1 - \vec r_2 ## i.e. position vector of q1 relative to q2) is ## \pi ##, which makes B2 zero at q1.
 
TSny said:
The B-field of charge 1 at the location of charge 2 is much stronger than the field of charge 2 at the location of charge 1. In fact the B- field of 2 at the location of 1 is zero.

Do you mind explaining this ?
 
conscience said:
Do you mind explaining this ?
For a point charge moving at constant velocity, the B field circles around the line of motion of the charge. For the OP's question, the relevant facts are
(1) B = 0 at all points on the line of motion of the charge.
(2) B ≠ 0 at points that are not on the line of motion of the charge.

A diagram of the field is shown here: https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-magnetic-field-of-a-moving-charge.html

Charge 2 does not produce any B field at the location of charge 1 because charge 1 lies on the line of motion of charge 2. However, charge 1 does produce some magnetic field at the location of particle 2 because 2 does not lie on the line of motion of 1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: conscience
Oh ! I apologise . I didn't pay enough attention to the grey line connecting the two charges in OP's diagram . I was assuming the two charges moving with their instantaneous velocities along the axes but not in the way as shown in the OP .Sorry , again .

By the way , two bar magnets exert equal and opposite forces obeying Newton's Third Law . So magnetic forces do obey Newton's Third Law . Isn't it ?
 
Yes, forces between poles of magnets obey the 3rd law if the poles are at rest. Otherwise, maybe not. For example, if one of the poles is accelerating wildly, all bets are off.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: conscience
TSny said:
if the poles are at rest
What you mean by this is there should be no relative motion between the magnets. Right?
 
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pushoam