I Time derivative of the angular momentum as a cross product

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the equations of motion for angular momentum in a system with a particle and a magnetic moment in a magnetic field. The Hamiltonian is defined, leading to the time evolution equation for angular momentum as a cross product involving the magnetic field. The identification of the term related to angular velocity with the expression for angular momentum evolution raises questions about its justification. The user seeks clarification on the significance of this identification and its relation to known concepts like Larmor precession. Understanding this relationship is crucial for grasping the dynamics of the system.
AndersF
Messages
27
Reaction score
4
I am trying to find the equations of motion of the angular momentum ##\boldsymbol L## for a system consisting of a particle of mass ##m## and magnetic moment ##\boldsymbol{\mu} \equiv \gamma \boldsymbol{L}## in a magnetic field ##\boldsymbol B##. The Hamiltonian of the system is therefore

##H=\frac{p^{2}}{2 m}-\gamma \boldsymbol{L} \cdot \boldsymbol{B}##

I have found that the time evolution equation for the angular momentum is

##\frac{d \boldsymbol{L}}{d t}=-\gamma \boldsymbol{B} \times \boldsymbol{L}##

However, the solution identifies the term ##-\gamma \boldsymbol{B}## with the angular velocity ##\boldsymbol{\Omega}##:

##\frac{d \boldsymbol{L}}{d t}=\boldsymbol{\Omega} \times \boldsymbol{L}##

I do not understand what the justification is for making this identification. This last equation looks familiar to me, but I'm not sure where I've seen it... Could someone give me some guidance on this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think he introduced a new parameter defined as
\Omega:=-\gamma B.
 
Okay, but does the formula ##\frac{d \boldsymbol{L}}{d t}=\boldsymbol{\Omega} \times \boldsymbol{L}## have any special meaning, being ##\boldsymbol{\Omega}## the angular velocity?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top