Relativistically correct exression for Lorentz force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the correct expression for the Lorentz force acting on a relativistic particle in an electromagnetic (EM) field, specifically in cgs units and in terms of vector potential A and scalar potential φ. Participants explore how this relates to deriving equations of motion from a given Lagrangian without using covariant tensor notation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests the Lorentz force expression in cgs units, emphasizing the need for a non-covariant form due to their current level of study.
  • Another participant asserts that the Lorentz force expression for a relativistic particle is fundamentally the same as that for a non-relativistic particle, providing the equation f = dp/dt = q(E + v × B) but notes that this is not in tensor form.
  • A different participant suggests that in cgs Gaussian units, one can simply divide velocity by c, unless c is set to 1.
  • Another participant mentions the conservation of momentum in the EM field and provides a general approach to transforming equations from SI to Gaussian units, though they express uncertainty about the original request.
  • One participant expresses interest in the pedagogical approach of deriving the Lorentz force law from a Lagrangian, noting that it clarifies the relationship between charge, four-potential, and four-momentum, while also stating that the Lorentz force law is inherently relativistic.
  • This participant suggests that recognizing the correspondence between partial derivatives of the four-potential and the E and B fields can lead to a demonstration that matches the Lorentz force law, leaving the details for the student to explore.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the Lorentz force expression in relativistic contexts, with some asserting its similarity to non-relativistic forms while others emphasize the need for a more nuanced understanding. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise formulation and derivation methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various units and forms of the Lorentz force, indicating potential limitations in understanding due to differences in educational backgrounds and familiarity with tensor notation. There is also mention of transforming equations between unit systems, which may introduce additional complexity.

mlh3789
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I need to know the correct expression for the Lorentz force on a relativistic particle in an EM field, in cgs units, in terms of vector potential A and scalar potential phi, to prove that a given Lagrangian produces the correct equations of motion. I don't need it in covariant form with tensors and all of that because we haven't learned that yet. Thanks everyone.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mlh3789 said:
I need to know the correct expression for the Lorentz force on a relativistic particle in an EM field, in cgs units, in terms of vector potential A and scalar potential phi, to prove that a given Lagrangian produces the correct equations of motion. I don't need it in covariant form with tensors and all of that because we haven't learned that yet. Thanks everyone.


The the correct expression for the Lorentz force on a relativistic particle in an EM field is no different than the same expression for a non-relativistic particle, i.e. in MKS units

f = dp/dt = q(E + vxB)

This is not a 4-tensor equation though. If you're speaking about the tensor formulation then its taks on a different form. The tensor form is dP/d\tau = qF*U where P = 4-momentum of particle, F = Faraday tensor and U = particle's 4-velocity.

Pete
 
In cgs gaussian units, just divide v by c, unless you have set c=1.
 
Because of my poor editing, I cannot write it down here. In fact, I am not quite sure what you are asking. But I believe you can find your answer by looking at the differential expression of conservation of momentum of EM field which is in the form of divergence equation on the internet or other sources. The momentum density is something like 1/(4times pi times c) of cross product of E and B, the Lorentz force density is something like rho times E plus j/c cross B etc. If you have that equation in SI unit, you can transform it in Gaussian unit by replacing epsilon with 1/4pi, mu with 4pi / c^2, and B with B/c. If you find this is not helpful, I am sorry but I already did the best I can.
 
mlh3789 said:
I need to know the correct expression for the Lorentz force on a relativistic particle in an EM field, in cgs units, in terms of vector potential A and scalar potential phi, to prove that a given Lagrangian produces the correct equations of motion. I don't need it in covariant form with tensors and all of that because we haven't learned that yet. Thanks everyone.

I'm interested to see that someone is being taught about this way of getting the Lorentz force law from a Lagrangian. It makes it possible to see how adding the charge times the four-potential to the four-momentum (as in the Pauli "minimal electromagnetic coupling" assumption) gives a Lagrangian which results in exactly the same law of motion for charged particles as the Lorentz force law. That puzzled me for a long time until I worked it out for myself, which isn't difficult but I didn't see it mentioned in the textbooks which I used.

As mentioned in a previous response, the Lorentz force law is already relativistic. That means all you have to do is write out the Euler-Lagrange equations, recognize which partial derivatives of the four-potential correspond to the E and B fields and reorganize the result to show that it matches the Lorentz force law. I'm leaving the details as an exercise for the student.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
933
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
965
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K