Violation of conservation of momentum?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of conservation of momentum in the context of two parallel wires carrying current and the effects of their magnetic fields. Participants explore the implications of timing the currents in these wires and whether such an arrangement could lead to a net thrust without violating fundamental physics principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario where two parallel wires with current attract each other, suggesting that turning off one wire while the other remains powered could create thrust.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the feasibility of the proposed timing, suggesting it would violate fundamental physics.
  • Some participants note that the arrangement would produce electromagnetic (EM) radiation, which carries momentum and would result in equal and opposite momentum on the wires.
  • There is a discussion about the role of near field effects and how they relate to momentum conservation, depending on the frequency of current switching.
  • A later reply identifies a flaw in the original thought experiment, emphasizing that both positive and negative transitions in current are necessary to generate a net force, leading to a net zero force from the transient magnetic fields.
  • Participants discuss that both wires emit radiation when the current changes, and conservation of momentum is inherent in Maxwell's equations.
  • One participant mentions that energy is consumed in overcoming radiation resistance, which affects momentum balance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of skepticism about the original proposal, with some agreeing that it cannot work as described due to conservation laws, while others explore the nuances of the timing and effects involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of achieving thrust without violating conservation principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge issues with the timing of currents and the necessity of considering both positive and negative transitions in current to understand the forces involved. The discussion also highlights the complexities of EM radiation and its implications for momentum conservation.

Danyon
Messages
83
Reaction score
1
According to amperes force law two parallel wires with current flowing in the same direction will experience a magnetic force attracting them together. consider two 1cm long wires parallel to each other, separated by a distance of 1cm. Pass a current through both of the wires for the time it takes for the magnetic field from each to reach half way between them, then turn the current off on the left wire. The magnetic field from the left wire from when it was still on will continue to propagate outwards towards the right wire and will pass the right wire, this will cause the right wire to attract to the left. At the same time, the magnetic field from the right wire will pass the left wire, however since the wire has no current there will be no force attracting it to the right wire. Then turn the current off on the right wire and wait till the magnetic fields dissipate. then start the process all over again very quickly. This should produce a small thrust in one direction. Is there anything wrong with this picture??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
Thread re-opened. There has to be an issue, but I'm not seeing it. In the simplest case, you are asking about why a caterpillar would not work with timing of the currents in the two wires. Hopefully somebody can point out the flaw for us. :smile:
 
there are infact problems with the timings that I gave in the example, but I'm quite sure there exists timing that will work
 
Danyon said:
I suspect there may be some problems with the timings that I gave in the example, but I'm quite sure there exists timing that will work
Well, I'm pretty sure it won't work, since it would violate fundamental physics. The simplified problem statement is to time the two currents so that the B field from the left wire reaches the right wire as the current is turned on there, generating a force which does not happen in the left wire.

Sorry that I'm not seeing the obvious problem right off the bat. Others will find it for us...
 
berkeman said:
Well, I'm pretty sure it won't work, since it would violate fundamental physics. The simplified problem statement is to time the two currents so that the B field from the left wire reaches the right wire as the current is turned on there, generating a force which does not happen in the left wire.

Sorry that I'm not seeing the obvious problem right off the bat. Others will find it for us...

The proper timings are the following. separate the wires by 1.5cm. Turn on both the wires until the magnetic field reaches 0.5cm away from the wires, then shut power off on the left wire, while keeping the right wire powered until the magnetic field from the left wire reaches it.
 
I know, your question is clear. Please just wait for some responses from our physicists. Thank you.
 
This is the same issue as in your other thread. This arrangement will produce EM radiation (waves). The waves will carry momentum and you will get an equal and opposite momentum on the wires. This is another example of a radiation reaction drive, not a reaction less drive.

It is not a violation of conservation of momentum, the momentum is in the EM waves. Also, again you will be better off just shining a laser backwards. The EM momentum will be more collimated.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vidit jain and vanhees71
Dale said:
This is the same issue as in your other thread. This arrangement will produce EM radiation (waves). The waves will carry momentum and you will get an equal and opposite momentum on the wires. This is another example of a radiation reaction drive, not a reaction less drive.
Okay, thanks. I've been wondering about this for a while. would there be any near field effects in this example?
 
  • #10
Danyon said:
Okay, thanks. I've been wondering about this for a while. would there be any near field effects in this example?
That depends on the frequency of your current switching. Near fields still conserve momentum, so that doesn't change the above comments.
 
  • #11
Dale said:
That depends on the frequency of your current switching. Near fields still conserve momentum, so that doesn't change the above comments.
That's a shame. Oh well
 
  • #12
Dale said:
That depends on the frequency of your current switching. Near fields still conserve momentum, so that doesn't change the above comments.
Which wire do you say is emitting radiation? Would it still be the case if the device was only used once?
 
  • #13
Okay, I think I finally figured out the flaw. Interesting thought experiment accually.

The simplified situation is a pulse in current from the left wire that generates a B field at the right wire just as there is a current pulsing in the right wire, generating a force. The part that I missed at first is that to generate a pulse, you need to have a positive and then a negative transition. Same goes for the current on the right wire. If you look at the overall set of transients, you get a net zero force from the transient B fields and the transient currents in the right wire. I was only thinking about the positive onset currents and B-fields, and not taking into account the decreasing B-field and currents. Whew.
 
  • #14
Danyon said:
Which wire do you say is emitting radiation?
Both. EM radiation is produced any time the current changes.

Danyon said:
Would it still be the case if the device was only used once?
The conservation of momentum is built into Maxwell's equations. You cannot get around it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #15
Some energy will be consumed overcoming radiation resistance. When you add that to the mix, momentum increase and decrease balances.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K