A Potential Energy of Relativistic Particles in Coulomb Field

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the potential energy of a relativistic electron in a Coulomb field, questioning whether it should be expressed as ##\frac{qQ}{r}## or modified with a reduced distance ##r\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}## due to relativistic effects. Landau and Lifshitz assert that the potential energy remains unrenormalized, while other authors suggest the adjustment is necessary. The conversation also references Sommerfeld's historical derivation of the hydrogen atom's fine structure, highlighting its inaccuracies due to the lack of consideration for electron spin and the gyrofactor. The relativistic equation of motion is derived from a specific Lagrangian, emphasizing the significance of this topic in both theoretical and historical contexts. The thread ultimately seeks clarity on the correct formulation of potential energy in this relativistic scenario.
reterty
Messages
30
Reaction score
2
Let us consider relativistic particle (electron) which moves with relativistic speed ##v## in the Coulomb field (in the field of a fixed heavy nucleus). The main question is what is the potential energy of a particle in such a static field? Landau and Lifshitz in their book "Field Theory" believe that the potential energy is not renormalized in any way and is equal to ##\frac{qQ}{r}##. At the same time, a number of authors of original articles on this topic introduce a reduced distance ##r\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}## into the denominator of this fraction due to the relativistic effect of the reduction in linear dimensions. Which of them is right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess you mean the relativistic motion of a charged particle in the coulomb field of a very much heavier particle, neglecting the radiation reaction. The relativistic equation of motion in the non-covariant formalism is derived from the Lagrangian
$$L=-mc^2 \sqrt{1-\dot{\vec{x}}^2} + \frac{q Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 |\vec{x}|}.$$
It's of some historical interest since it was Sommerfeld's derivation of the fine structure of the hydrogen-atom spectrum within old quantum theory. It's kind of surprising that he got the correct result although the model is, of course, entirely wrong, i.e., it doesn't take into account the spin 1/2 of the electron and the gyrofactor 2 (both of which weren't known in 1916). That's why you find the solution in Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Sommerfeld_model#Relativistic_orbit
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, PeroK and malawi_glenn
reterty said:
$r\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$
Please note that on this website you need to use a double-$ instead of a single-$ for LaTeX to work.
$$r\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$
 
DrGreg said:
on this website you need to use a double-$ instead of a single-$ for LaTeX to work
Or a double # for inline LaTeX (the double $ means an equation in its own paragraph).
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and vanhees71
For example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305345527_A_New_Relativistic_Extension_of_the_Harmonic_Oscillator_Satisfying_an_Isochronicity_Principle
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...