Theoretical problem (no calculations) with electric field from moving charge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the electric field generated by a moving charge and the implications of its deceleration on distant observers. The professor asserts that at a certain time, the field at a distant point behaves as if the charge continues moving, while the student believes that the field should reflect the charge's actual trajectory, including its deceleration. The concept of aberration is introduced, explaining that the electric field points to where the charge will be if it maintains its velocity, leading to a "snap back" effect when the information of the charge's stop reaches the observer. The student expresses confusion over the professor's explanation and questions the accuracy of the concepts presented. The conversation highlights the complexities of understanding electric fields in the context of relativistic motion and the propagation of information.
solarboy
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm in a physics 2 (electricity and magnetism) course, and I'm having trouble with something the professor discussed in class. I tried approaching him about it afterwards, but it still didn't make sense to me. I really think he made a mistake here, and I'd like input.
we're discussing magnetism, and as a precursor to that we're discussing electric fields generated by moving charges. so we have a point charge q moving at a relativistic speed v to the right on the x-axis. ( Relativistic effects make the electric field more powerful in directions perpendicular to the x-axis than parallel to the x-axis, but otherwise I don't think the prof mentioned anything that depended on the speed being relativistic- I think I qould have the same problem for non-relativistic speeds.) Fine.
At t=t0, the charge is at some negative point on the x-axis p0 (all space and time coordinates are in a stationary reference frame). at t=t1, the charge is at the origin. at that point, the charge decelerates over the extremely brief period dt to v=0.
we began discussing what happens as the effects of the stop propagate (at the speed of light, of course), and this is where I got lost. we're looking at the field at time t2 at a point Pa which is farther away than c(t2-t1) such that the effect has not has time to reach Pa yet.
My professor's version: at t2, the field within distance c(t2-t1)is that of a stationary point charge at the origin. outside, the information that the charge has stopped moving has not reached Pa yet. therefore, the field at Pa is as though the charge had continued moving, so at t2, the field at Pa is that of a moving point charge at v(t2-t1) on the x-axis. when the information that the charge stopped gets to Pa, it will suddenly shift, in Pa's perspective, from being at a positive point on the x-axis to being at the origin. (he did not discuss any relativistic effects, like changing time or location coordinates, other than the boosted field in the y direction.)
My version: at t2, the field within distance c(t2-t1)is that of a stationary point charge at the origin. outside, the information that the charge has stopped has not reached Pa, but neither has the information that the charge is at the origin reached Pa. therefore, Pa will feel the field of a moving charge somewhere left of the origin and will observe it move, decelerate, and stop at the origin in the same way as it actaully did, just with a time delay.
so should I apply for his job?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
His job is secure for the moment.

There is an effect called aberration for such a moving charge that makes it so the electric field at a distant observer points ahead to where the charge will be if it keeps moving. Weird but true. This is why the professor says the apparent position of the charge snaps back.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top