Qv x B force in electron's proper frame

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 2K views
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
819
Can we describe / explain the B x v force in the electron's own reference frame without reference to relativistic invariants, 4-vectors, tensors et al?

The aim would be to explain things like the following video without the notion of "field lines" that electrons and wires move through. But the target audience would be people who understand non-relativistic electromagnetics including Maxwell's equations.

 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Lorenz force
$$\mathbf F = q(\mathbf E +\mathbf v \times \mathbf B)$$
for a particle (charge ##q##) in an electric field ##\mathbf E## and magnetic field ##\mathbf B##, looks like
$$F'=q\mathbf E'$$
in the particle's frame. Where ##\mathbf E'## is the electric field in the particle frame.

This means that in the particle's perspective, there is no ##\mathbf v \times\mathbf B## term, only electric fields (as its own velocity is null in that frame).

Edit: I do not think this helps much to solve the Faraday paradox. As (1) you also have to transform the magnetic fields (2) the frame is rotating (3) it is a metal with currents not a single electron.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin
Swamp Thing said:
people who understand non-relativistic electromagnetics including Maxwell's equations
There is no such thing. Maxwell’s equations describe a relativistic field theory by construction. In fact, it is the field theory that led Einstein to develop relativity because it was not consistent with non-relativistic physics.
 
Orodruin said:
There is no such thing. Maxwell’s equations describe a relativistic field theory by construction. In fact, it is the field theory that led Einstein to develop relativity because it was not consistent with non-relativistic physics.

In our EE course (late 1970s) we learnt Maxwell's equations and how to apply them in a single reference frame, but not how to transform the field properties to other frames. When dealing with charges or wires in a magnetic field we would do the sums in the magnets reference frame. I don't remember thinking about how it would look in the electron or wire frame.

So from the replies, it seems that that kind of target audience is stuck with moving lines of force cutting a stationary wire or moving charge (naive pseudo relativistic intuition) ?
 
Swamp Thing said:
Can we describe / explain the B x v force in the electron's own reference frame without reference to relativistic invariants, 4-vectors, tensors et al?
Sure. ##v=0## so ##B \times v=0## regardless of ##B##
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50 and Swamp Thing
Dale said:
Sure. ##v=0## so ##B \times v=0## regardless of ##B##
This reminds me of that time I discovered the question "How far does the muon travel in its rest frame?" in a modern physics course with the correction template unironically suggesting something different from zero ...

It is now a favourite question of mine to pose to students (obviously with the correct answer) as it illustrates a key concept that way too many just don't grasp ...
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude and Dale