A Potential Energy of Relativistic Particles in Coulomb Field

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
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top