SR and Magnetism: A Conceptual Understanding

In summary, the relationship between the magnetic field and special relativity is complex. In some cases, the magnetic field can be understood as the Lorentz transform of the electric field, but this does not always hold true. Concepts such as time dilation and Lorentz contraction can help explain the effects of magnetic fields, but there are situations where the magnetic field cannot be fully explained by these concepts alone. Additionally, in high velocity situations, laws such as Coulomb's law and Ampere's law may be affected by the effects of special relativity. Ultimately, understanding the connection between magnetic fields and special relativity requires a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between the two.
  • #1
Biker
416
52
I remember reaching to the conclusion that changing the reference frame (Galilean transformation) doesn't give the same result in Electromagnetism interactions in high school, I searched for an answer and didn't look any further than knowing that SR solved this.

Now I am back in an engineering course about this which still talks about these interactions (without SR), So I have some conceptual questions just to understand how this works without getting into the math (Sorry if it is nescessary, Only because we have it next year not this one):

1) Does the magnetic field exist because of SR effects so that it makes the same thing happen in all inertial reference frames? Or does the magnetic, electric field and SR work together to keep everything correct? What I mean here that can you work with SR and electric field only to explain what the magnetic field does in reference frames? and the notion of magnetic field was developed only because we didn't know SR?

2) When you work with high velocity particles with charges, Does for example coloumb's law get affected by this? What about other laws like biot savart law and ampere law (Will take them this semester) or do they inherently compatible with SR?

I just want to get the big picture so I can understand how these laws developed and sorry if this seems non-sense. Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Biker said:
can you work with SR and electric field only to explain what the magnetic field does in reference frames?
In certain specific circumstances, yes. For example, the magnetic field of a single charge can be understood as the Lorentz transform of the electric field.

However, this does not work in all cases. For example, you cannot get the magnetic field of an uncharged current-carrying wire that way.
 
  • #4
anorlunda said:
You may be interested in this paper https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf from 1905 by Albert Einstein.
I will certainly read that. Thank you.

Dale said:
In certain specific circumstances, yes. For example, the magnetic field of a single charge can be understood as the Lorentz transform of the electric field.

However, this does not work in all cases. For example, you cannot get the magnetic field of an uncharged current-carrying wire that way.
What about Feynman's explanation of that? https://readingfeynman.org/2015/09/06/magnetism-and-relativity/
What I also don't get about this argument is that if we have a current carrying wire stationary to me and the electrons are moving, We get a magnetic field but why doesn't the same length contract in this frame cause higher density of negative charge?! Or why in the stationary reference frame of the charge the density of positive and negative charges don't change by the same factor since the wire is shorted by that? So there should be no effect.

Are there situation were the magnetic field cannot be explained as a result of SR effects? I mean there is nothing more fundamental about the electric field but the notion that only moving charges get affected makes it less to me at least.

So I guess that these laws (Coloumb's law, biot savart law and ampere law) works when you use them on your reference frame but when you try to describe something in another reference frame you get a contradiction that SR solves because our notions of distance and time were wrong and they are only correct for your frame only.

I just want to understand the connection between the two and what happens to the laws when you go in the relativistic speeds. If someone can simply explain that, It would be great.
 
  • #5
Biker said:
What about Feynman's explanation of that?
That isn’t Feynman’s explanation. That is a blog entitled “Reading Feynman”. The explanation given there is from Purcell.

Note, in that explanation the magnetic field is not given as the Lorentz transform of an electric field. In fact, it is the other way around. They start with a magnetic field and then transform it to show that it leads to an electric field in other frames.

Biker said:
if we have a current carrying wire stationary to me and the electrons are moving, We get a magnetic field but why doesn't the same length contract in this frame cause higher density of negative charge?!
The electrons are not rigidly connected. The voltage source pushes them together such that the wire is essentially uncharged in the lab frame.

Biker said:
Are there situation were the magnetic field cannot be explained as a result of SR effects?
Any situation where ##E^2-B^2<0## in units where c=1
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Biker said:
2) When you work with high velocity particles with charges, Does for example coloumb's law get affected by this? What about other laws like biot savart law and ampere law (Will take them this semester) or do they inherently compatible with SR?

Coulomb's law: Charged objects exchange momentum at rate: Q1Q2/d2

Charged objects that make a trip in space exchange less momentum than identical charged objects standing on the earth. That's because of the time dilation of the object pair that makes the trip.Ampere's force law: Parallel wires with electric currents exchange momentum at rate: length* I1I2/d

Parallel wires with electric currents that make a trip in space exchange less momentum than identical wires that are standing on the earth. That's because of the time dilation.Charged objects passing each other at high speed:
Both objects think that there is a sharp impulse (large force lasting a short time) of Coulomb force because of the other object's Lorentz contracted electric field.
Both objects think that the reason the other object thinks that there is a sharp impulse is the time dilation of the other object.
... And then let's say here is a paragraph about two magnets passing each other at high speed: Magnet sees the other magnet's magnetic field to be Lorentz contracted ... blah blah. Same story as in the previous paragraph.

I added the above paragraph in order to point out that it may be a good idea to think that there is a magnetic field around a magnet, although what is around a magnet is really an electric field that depends on frame in such way that another magnet detects forces or torques there where the 'magnetic field' exists.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Biker
  • #8
jartsa said:
I added the above paragraph in order to point out that it may be a good idea to think that there is a magnetic field around a magnet, although what is around a magnet is really an electric field that depends on frame in such way that another magnet detects forces or torques there where the 'magnetic field' exists.
If ##E^2-B^2<0## in any frame then there is no frame where the field is purely electric. There is one frame where it is purely magnetic, and in all other frames it is a mixed electromagnetic field.
 
  • Like
Likes Biker
  • #9
Biker said:
2) When you work with high velocity particles with charges, Does for example coloumb's law get affected by this? What about other laws like biot savart law and ampere law (Will take them this semester) or do they inherently compatible with SR?
Those laws aren't correct for relativistic charges. The correct versions are the Jefimenko's equations (see also the Lienard-Wiechert potential). But Maxwell's equations are correct still with relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes Biker
  • #10
Dale said:
If ##E^2-B^2<0## in any frame then there is no frame where the field is purely electric. There is one frame where it is purely magnetic, and in all other frames it is a mixed electromagnetic field.
So you do not accept the idea of magnets not having any magnetic field around them? Well it sound funny even to me.

But we can explain how a magnet generates an electric field around itself: Electrons move from one side of the magnet to other side of the magnet.

I remember some previous discussions about current loops observed from different frames. A wire loop with current is an electric dipole in all frames except one. So a wire loop without any field around it generates a dipole electric field around it when it accelerates. And a magnet without any field around it generates a dipole electric field around it when it accelerates.People did not know about that relativistic effect of electrons accumulating on one side of a wire loop at that time when the magnetic field was invented. If they had known, then maybe they would not have invented the magnetic field.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
jartsa said:
People did not know about that relativistic effect of electrons accumulating on one side of a wire loop at that time when the magnetic field was invented. If they had known, then maybe they would not have invented the magnetic field.
What are you talking about? Electrons don't accumulate on one side of a wire loop. And we know now that the electric and magnetic fields are just components of the electromagnetic field tensor.
 
  • #12
Khashishi said:
Electrons don't accumulate on one side of a wire loop
They do, in a reference frame where the loop is moving. If you are familiar with four vectors then the charge density and the current density are the timelike and spacelike parts of a four vector. So if you boost a pure current ##(0,\mathbf{I})## then you get a current and a charge ##(\rho’,\mathbf{I’})##
 
  • #13
Khashishi said:
Electrons don't accumulate on one side of a wire loop.
"Accumulate" is maybe the wrong word. They don't accumulate over time in any inertial frame. Their densities change when you switch inertial frames. Here is a good explanation by DrGreg:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/explanation-of-em-fields-using-sr.714635/page-2#post-4528480

attachment-php-attachmentid-44016-d-1329434012-png-png-png.png


Dale said:
They do [accumulate on one side of a wire loop], in a reference frame where the loop is moving.
Maybe in a reference frame where the loop is accelerating. When the loop moves at constant speed, the densities are different in the two wire segments, but constant over time. So they are not continuously "accumulating" any more. Again, I think this is a wording problem.
 

Attachments

  • attachment-php-attachmentid-44016-d-1329434012-png-png-png.png
    attachment-php-attachmentid-44016-d-1329434012-png-png-png.png
    41.1 KB · Views: 297
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #14
A.T. said:
When the loop moves at constant speed, the densities are different in the two wire segments, but constant over time.
Yes, I agree. ##(0,\mathbf{I})## boosts to ##(\rho’,\mathbf{I’})## not ##(\rho’ t’,\mathbf{I’})##
 
  • #15
OK. I had previously answered without looking at the necessary context in the other thread, and didn't realize you were talking about a moving loop of current.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale

1. What is the relationship between Special Relativity and Magnetism?

The relationship between Special Relativity (SR) and Magnetism is explained by the Lorentz transformation equations, which describe how measurements of time and distance change for observers in different frames of reference. This relationship shows that moving charges experience a force in a magnetic field, and this force is a result of the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction.

2. How does Special Relativity affect the behavior of charged particles in a magnetic field?

Special Relativity affects the behavior of charged particles in a magnetic field by causing the particles to experience a force. This force is a result of the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction, which alter the perception of time and distance for observers in different frames of reference. This force is responsible for the phenomenon of magnetism.

3. Can you explain the concept of time dilation in the context of SR and Magnetism?

Time dilation is a key concept in Special Relativity that explains how time appears to slow down for observers in different frames of reference. In the context of SR and Magnetism, it means that the perception of time for a moving charged particle is different from that of an observer at rest, causing a difference in the measurement of time and resulting in a force experienced by the particle in a magnetic field.

4. How does the speed of light relate to SR and Magnetism?

The speed of light is a fundamental constant in Special Relativity and plays a crucial role in the relationship between SR and Magnetism. According to the Lorentz transformation equations, the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. This means that the speed of light is the same for a stationary observer and for an observer moving with a charged particle in a magnetic field.

5. What are some real-world applications of understanding SR and Magnetism?

Understanding the relationship between SR and Magnetism is essential for many technological applications, such as particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, and medical imaging devices. It also helps in developing accurate models for predicting the behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields, which is crucial for space exploration and satellite communication systems.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
693
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
7
Views
403
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
781
Replies
60
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
995
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
3
Views
92
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top