Relativistic electron in static electric field

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 4K views
Hybird
Messages
24
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Electron placed in static electric field [tex]\vec{E}[/tex] = -[tex]\Psi[/tex][tex]\hat{x}[/tex] , its initial velocity is 0. Calculate V(t).


Homework Equations



[tex]F_{e}[/tex]=[tex]\frac{d}{dt}[/tex]p(t)

p(t) = [tex]\gamma[/tex](t)mv(t)

Gamma is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) of course


The Attempt at a Solution



This is how I go about it and want to know if I'm on the right track.

i) First you multiply the electric field by the charge of an electron to get:

[tex]F_{e}[/tex] = [tex]\frac{d}{dt}[/tex]p(t) = e[tex]\Psi[/tex]

ii) Then you integrate wrt time to get:

p(t) = e[tex]\Psi[/tex]t

iii) Then you relate momentum to velocity by:

p(t) = [tex]\gamma[/tex]mv(t)

iv) Finally you solve for V(t) from the above equation, expressing gamma explicitly I get the following formula:

v(t) = [tex]\frac{e{\Psi}t}{m}[/tex]*[tex]\frac{1}{ {\sqrt{1+ {\frac{ e^{2}{\Psi}^{2}t^{2} }{ m^{2}c^{2} }} }} }[/tex]

Does this seem to be the right method? I have to integrate this eventually to get x(t)..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This doesn't seem right because V(t) is unbounded as t goes to infinity and thus we would pass the speed of light correct?
 
Hybird said:
This doesn't seem right because V(t) is unbounded as t goes to infinity and thus we would pass the speed of light correct?
No. This expression

Hybird said:
v(t) = [tex]\frac{e{\Psi}t}{m}[/tex]*[tex]\frac{1}{ {\sqrt{1+ {\frac{ e^{2}{\Psi}^{2}t^{2} }{ m^{2}c^{2} }} }} }[/tex]

approaches c as t goes to infinity.
 
Last edited:
So maybe I am on the right track. Just curious, how do you get that limit? Do you have to binomial expand the square root?
 
Hybird said:
how do you get that limit? Do you have to binomial expand the square root?
I don't know what you mean by that, but probably not. After you do about 100 million of these kinds of limits, you just start to smell the approach. In this case, I just know that the other stuff under the radical will be much larger than 1, so I ignore the 1. The rest is straightforward. I think the more mathy way to do it is to divide top and bottom by t or something ...
 
Last edited: