Simulating Angular Momentum and Torque in Particle Interactions

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on simulating angular momentum and torque in particle interactions, specifically for protons and electrons. The user seeks to incorporate rotational data and understand how to simulate the effects of magnetic fields on electron orientation. Key points include the challenge of representing electron behavior classically, given their intrinsic properties like spin, and the need for a model that allows for real-time changes in orientation due to magnetic influences. Participants emphasize the complexity of accurately modeling these interactions, noting that classical treatments may not fully capture the behavior of electrons as magnetic dipoles. Ultimately, the user aims to develop a simulation that accounts for magnetic interactions alongside existing gravitational and electrostatic models.
  • #31
darkdave said:
Gravitational forces are NOT electromagnetic.
Nobody said that :confused:

And it's not arbitrary if you want to see the significance of one type of force vs another at various types of time increments.
The definition of those "forces" itself is arbitrary.
There is one electromagnetic interaction. Each particle feels a single, electromagnetic force. You can divide this force into several components, but there are many possible ways to do that. Therefore, if you drop some of those components, this is always arbitrary. It can be reasonable, if those dropped parts are negligible, but it does not have to be.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
You inferred it.

We were talking about simulating just gravity alone between particles vs electro static attractions.

If you would take your time to follow the line of conversation from start to where we are now you would be less confused.

Dropping components of forces that belong to the Electro magnetic category being arbitrary is in the eye of the beholder. There are reasons to do this that makes sense. Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on your part not to be able to see this. But do we really have to debate this?

mfb said:
Nobody said that :confused:The definition of those "forces" itself is arbitrary.
There is one electromagnetic interaction. Each particle feels a single, electromagnetic force. You can divide this force into several components, but there are many possible ways to do that. Therefore, if you drop some of those components, this is always arbitrary. It can be reasonable, if those dropped parts are negligible, but it does not have to be.
 
  • #33
If you would take your time to follow the line of conversation from start to where we are now you would be less confused.
I don't think so. In addition, I don't think I am confused.

We were talking about simulating just gravity alone between particles vs electro static attractions.
Why did you try to include magnetic components then?

Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on your part not to be able to see this.
If you don't think I can help: Fine. I'll just delete my subscription to this thread and do not visit it again.Edit: That is up to you.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Do you still want me to answer your questions since you are deleting your subscription to this thread? I'm sorry for hurting your feelings, i didn't mean to.

mfb said:
I don't think so. In addition, I don't think I am confused.


Why did you try to include magnetic components then?


If you don't think I can help: Fine. I'll just delete my subscription to this thread and do not visit it again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K