Solving an Unexpected Problem: Newton's Third Law

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a problem involving two current-carrying wires and whether Newton's third law is violated. The initial analysis suggests that the force on wire 1 due to wire 2 is zero, leading to the conclusion that the law is violated. However, it is clarified that this interpretation is incorrect because the magnetic field from an infinitesimal current element cannot be considered in isolation. The correct approach involves understanding the net forces on infinitely long wires, which ultimately show that Newton's third law holds true. The problem requires a more comprehensive analysis of the magnetic interactions between the wires.
gazepdapi1
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
my professor kind of sprung this problem out of nowhere for the class, and I'm having just a little trouble getting started? The problem goes like this:
A current wire pointing in the +j direction has an Idl. A second current wire in the +i direction has a different Idl.
The question he proposed was, is Newtons third law violated?

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/7699/untitledxy4.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
for the bottom wire the 2's should be one's, my mistake.
Can anyone give me a hint?
 
Can you restate the problem?
 
Here's a new picture of the problem, the first one was not drawn correctly.http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9952/untitledey8.jpg
The question is, given the two current elements as shown above, with current in the direction of the arrow, is Newtons third law violated. This is what I got. B on 2 due to 1 is in the (+k) direction given by the right hand rule. F on 2 due to B on 1 = I2dl2 X B1 = I2dl2B1 (+j x +k) = (+i) (the numbers are subscripts and the x's represent cross products. B on 1 dues to 2, is 0 because the current is in the same direction as p, the point where we are trying to measure the B. (dl X r) = 0. Therefore there is no force on 1 due to 2. This means that Newton's third law is violated. But the professor told us that it only appears that it's violated and now we have to prove why its not violated.

Can anyone tell me why? I can't seem to figure it out.
thanks a lot, nertil
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nobody knows
?
 
This question is ill-posed as written because you can't consider the magnetic field from an infinitesimal current element in isolation. This point is made in every E&M book I'm aware of (see the discussion on the Law of Biot Savart).

If you're being asked to consider two infinitely long wires along i and j directions, of which just a little is pictured, then it's easy to show that the net force on each wire produced by the other is zero, and the third law holds as expected.

As for point P, I don't know what it's supposed to represent in your diagram.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top