Order of Operations, Lorentz Transformations & Superposition

univox360
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I am wondering about the order of operations concerning the Lorentz transformation of fields and the superposition of fields.

I was given a problem:

Two positively charged electrons start at the origin and then travel along the x-axis at a constant speed v in opposite directions. Calculate the electric field in the (far) radiation zone.

My approach was to first transform the electric potential field from each electron's rest frame to the lab frame. Then, in the lab frame I added the two fields together via superposition. Afterward, I calculated the electric field making approximations for the (far) radiation zone.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with this approach? Why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
univox360 said:
I am wondering about the order of operations concerning the Lorentz transformation of fields and the superposition of fields.

I was given a problem:

Two positively charged electrons start at the origin and then travel along the x-axis at a constant speed v in opposite directions. Calculate the electric field in the (far) radiation zone.

My approach was to first transform the electric potential field from each electron's rest frame to the lab frame. Then, in the lab frame I added the two fields together via superposition. Afterward, I calculated the electric field making approximations for the (far) radiation zone.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with this approach? Why?
E= \frac {Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}* \frac {1- \beta^2}{(1- \beta^2 sin^2 \theta) ^{3/2}}

where
\beta = v/c} and \theta is the angle formed between the observer-charge axis and the direction of charge motion (the x-axis in your case).

So:

E_1= \frac {Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r_1^2}* \frac {1- \beta_1^2}{(1- \beta_1^2 sin^2 \theta_1) ^{3/2}}E_2= \frac {Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r_2^2}* \frac {1- \beta_2^2}{(1- \beta_2^2 sin^2 \theta_2) ^{3/2}}

Now:

\beta_1=v/c=-\beta_2So:

E_1= \frac {Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r_1^2}* \frac {1- \beta^2}{(1- \beta^2 sin^2 \theta_1) ^{3/2}}E_2= \frac {Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r_2^2}* \frac {1- \beta^2}{(1- \beta^2 sin^2 \theta_2) ^{3/2}}

Add the two together and you get your result. Is this what you got?
 
Last edited:
I transformed the 4-vector potential due to both charges, not the electric field directly.
 
univox360 said:
I transformed the 4-vector potential due to both charges, not the electric field directly.

You should be getting the same answer.
 
Well, yes they must eventually come to the same answer. But I am more concerned with whether or not the order of operations is important.
 
univox360 said:
Well, yes they must eventually come to the same answer. But I am more concerned with whether or not the order of operations is important.

Can't tell without seeing your calcs. Post them and we'll talk.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top