Violation of action-reaction law?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter celestra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Newton's Third Law in the context of electromagnetic interactions between moving charged particles. Participants explore whether the action-reaction law is violated when considering the forces acting on two moving charges and their associated electromagnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario with two positively charged points moving towards each other, questioning if the action-reaction law is violated due to the directions of the forces involved.
  • Another participant argues that in systems involving electromagnetic forces, Newton's Third Law does not hold as it does in purely mechanical systems, suggesting that conservation of momentum is a more general principle.
  • A different participant proposes that if the total momentum of the charges and the fields is considered, the action-reaction law can still be applied, although it may fail when only the charges are considered.
  • Some participants note that the forces due to the magnetic fields generated by the charges are very small and can often be neglected in classical mechanics.
  • One participant seeks clarification on the concept of "momentum of the fields" and its relation to special relativity, questioning if Newtonian mechanics can be applied in magnetic interactions without considering relativistic effects.
  • Another participant asserts that the action-reaction law still applies, as whatever generates the fields experiences an opposite force, although this is challenged by others who point out discrepancies in the forces felt by the charges.
  • There is a mention of Amper's magnetic force and its potential role in preserving the action-reaction law.
  • Participants discuss the necessity of relativity in understanding the forces between moving charges, emphasizing that total momentum is conserved when including electromagnetic field momentum.
  • One participant inquires about experimental evidence related to the theoretical claims being discussed, suggesting a need for practical validation of the concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of Newton's Third Law in the context of electromagnetic interactions. While some argue that the law fails under certain conditions, others maintain that it holds when considering the entire system, including fields. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion involves complex interactions that may not be fully captured by classical definitions of momentum and forces, particularly in the presence of electromagnetic fields. There are references to the limitations of classical mechanics when applied to relativistic scenarios.

celestra
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Two equally positively charged points are moving on a plane at a constant speed. One of them (q1) is heading towards south, the other one (q2) towards west, and they're approaching to each other. Then, magnetic fields are induced from these moving charges. And Lorentz forces on q1 and q2 according to the other ones act towards east and north respectively. And Coulomb forces on those charges act in the direction of away from each other. Then, the net forces on each charges act in the direction of somewhere between north and east.

Here is the question. It seems that action-reaction law is violated in this case. They're not equal forces in oppsite directions. Rather, their forces are heading weird directions. Is action-reaction law really violated in this case? Is there some other example that action-reaction law vilated?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In a purely mechanical system, Newton's Third Law implies conservation of momentum and vice versa. When electromagnetic forces are involved, mechanical momentum and energy (i.e. kinetic energy plus potential energy of particles) are not conserved, in general. We account for this by associating energy and momentum with the electromagnetic field.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html

So Newton's Third Law fails in these situations because it is not as general as conservation of momentum, which does still hold true. I suppose one could define a "force exerted on the electromagnetic field" by way of \vec F = d {\vec p}_{em} / dt, but I don't remember ever seeing this done in practice.
 
Last edited:
Please, check me if I'm right. Let the directions of the two forces on q1 and q2 be in north-east. Then the total momentum of the two charges are in the same direction. And the total momentum of the two fields are in the opposite direction, south-west(I'm not sure). So, the total momentum of the system cancels out and the total momentum is conserved. And so, we can think that action-reaction law can be still applied between the charges and the fields. If we consider the two charges only not the fields, then the action-reaction law fails. So, Newton's third law is right once you take everything into account. Am I right?
 
Last edited:
you are absolute right (there is even an explicit statement in my classical mechanics book (by Taylor)), Newton's third law fails for electromagnet forces when you consider the classical definitions of momentum and/or angular momentum (or more generally, forces in relativity).

if you look at the magnetic field generated by those two moving charges, the forces caused by them are very very small (in orders of something over c), thus in the classical limit, one can neglect those terms. (just look at \mu_0, the force constant for magnetism, which is incredibly small comparing to \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}.)
 
Last edited:
This is cool. I thought magnetic fields screwed up the third law a little, but I didn't know the details.

Just to be sure I've got it right: the "momentum of the fields" we talk about is just the momentum associated with the electromagnetic wave that propagates in the direction that q1 and q2 were flying in before they started interacting magnetically. Right?

Is this the same momentum that special relativity says waves have? If so, does that mean you can't always use pure Newtonian mechanics when dealing with magnetic interactions unless you at least borrow that concept from SR?
 
the third law is still there, in this case, whatever is making the fields feels the opposite force.
 
skywolf said:
the third law is still there, in this case, whatever is making the fields feels the opposite force.

The electrons are making the field, and if you look carefully at the forces, you'll see that they don't feel exactly the opposite force. That's the whole point.
 
doesn't the forgotten, axial, magnetic force that Amper discovered and Graneau preserve the third law for you?
 
Does relativity play any part here in the modification of Newtonian law for electrodynamics? Perhaps in such a case there is a reference frame where action-reaction holds.
 
  • #10
The forces between two moving charges requires relativity, even for slowly moving charges.
Total momentum is conserved if the electromagnetic field momentum is included.
This is difficult to show for this explicit example, but it can be shown in general.
 
  • #11
I must ask is there some experimental work about it, or all members are linear convinced and selfexplained...only theoretically...For example
attachment.php?attachmentid=17970&stc=1&d=1236976235.jpg


where exp should be with care for edge effect,but principle is here.
Will magnets fill force toward red arrow (in picture this is way of current)?

Furthermore, insted of one halfcircle wire , there cannot be coil (act-react will be nulled) but U shaped copper piece powered far away on left,and question is if there is radial force, or only magnetic axial...?

NS must be lose horizontal and fixed vertical, to determine is there force on them...
 

Attachments

  • pic0001.jpg
    pic0001.jpg
    1.4 KB · Views: 735
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K