Reaction force due to the curvature and gradient drift

AI Thread Summary
A charged particle experiences drift velocity in curved magnetic fields and due to transverse spatial gradients in magnetic field strength, which is added to its rotational velocity around the field line. The force vector acting on the particle is perpendicular to its velocity vector, leading to a specific expression for drift velocity. The discussion raises questions about the nature of the "reaction force" on the source of the magnetic field, particularly in the context of gradient drift and the implications of radiation fields that extend through spacetime. It is noted that while Newton's third law applies to mechanical systems, its relevance diminishes in the context of fields, where the conservation of momentum must consider both the particle and the field. Ultimately, the relationship between the momentum changes of particles and fields complicates the traditional understanding of forces in electromagnetic contexts.
victorvmotti
Messages
152
Reaction score
5
We know that a charged particle will have a drift velocity in both a curved magnetic field and when there is a transverse spatial gradient in the magnitude of the magnetic field.

This drift velocity is added to the rotation velocity around the the field line.

In both cases the force vector on the particle, $$\mathbf{F}$$ is perpendicular to the velocity vector.

$$\mathbf{v_D}=\frac {c}{q} \frac{\mathbf{F} \times \mathbf{B}}{B^2}$$

Now the question is what the "reaction force", $$-\mathbf{F}$$ is applied on, in particular in the case of gradient drift?

Is it the "source" of the magnetic field?

But what can we say about a radiation field that spans throughout spacetime, far from the source?

I mean we know that there is nothing like a free electromagnetic field even though for practical purposes we treat radiation like a dynamical entity "unconnected to the source."

Is the reaction force due to either curvature or gradient drift irrelevant here?

Have we assumed a time-independent $$\mathbf{B}$$ for the derivation of $$\mathbf{v_D}$$?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When dealing with fields Newton's third law as a law of forces becomes somewhat irrelevant. Generally we do not speak about the force on a field. However, Newton's third law is the law that encapsulates the conservation of momentum for mechanical systems, and the conservation of momentum does generalize to fields.

So, when dealing with fields, the change in momentum of the particle is equal and opposite to the change in momentum of the fields. Generally the change in momentum of the particle is considered to be the net force on the particle, but you usually don't consider the change in momentum of the fields to be a force on the fields (although I suppose that you could).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top