Simulating Angular Momentum and Torque in Particle Interactions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around simulating angular momentum and torque in particle interactions, specifically focusing on protons and electrons. Participants explore the challenges of incorporating rotational data into a classical simulation, considering both classical and quantum mechanical perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on simulating angular momentum and torque for electrons, questioning whether torque should be calculated at the classical electron radius due to magnetic interactions.
  • Another participant argues that classical simulations cannot accurately represent rotating particles and suggests that quantum mechanics is necessary if spin is relevant.
  • A participant acknowledges the quantum complications but insists on using a Bohr model interpretation to simulate particles' orientation changes due to torque from external magnetic fields.
  • Concerns are raised about the representation of the magnetic field vector in relation to particle interactions, with questions about its direction and relevance when particle velocity is zero.
  • Participants discuss the implications of electrons having magnetic fields and whether they possess orientation, with some asserting that electrons do not have classical poles or orientation.
  • There is a debate about the nature of magnetic dipoles and how they relate to electron behavior, with one participant expressing a desire to simulate electrons as if they behave like real magnets in close proximity.
  • Some participants emphasize that electrons cannot be modeled classically in the same way as macroscopic magnets, while others propose using known properties like angular momentum and mass to create a simulation that approximates reality.
  • Questions arise about the setup for such a simulation, with participants seeking a model that allows for the visualization of particle orientation changes in response to magnetic influences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of simulating electron behavior classically, with some advocating for a classical approach while others emphasize the limitations and necessity of quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best method to simulate these interactions accurately.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on classical versus quantum mechanical interpretations, the challenges of accurately modeling electron behavior, and the unresolved nature of how to represent magnetic interactions in the simulation.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in particle physics simulations, the interplay between classical and quantum mechanics, and those exploring the modeling of angular momentum and torque in charged particle interactions may find this discussion relevant.

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