Wait, I thought magnetism was nonconservative

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DivergentSpectrum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Magnetism
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of work done by magnetic fields on charged particles, particularly in the context of a simulation involving a constant magnetic field and an electrostatic force. Participants explore concepts related to kinetic energy, work, and angular momentum within electromagnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports a simulation showing that the work done and kinetic energy gained are equal, despite the presence of a magnetic field, suggesting a potential misunderstanding of work done by magnetic forces.
  • Another participant asserts that a static, constant magnetic field does no work on a charged particle, implying that there should be no gain in kinetic energy from the magnetic field alone.
  • A third participant elaborates on the equations of motion for a particle in an electromagnetic field, emphasizing that the magnetic field does not contribute to work done, regardless of its characteristics.
  • One participant acknowledges that since the magnetic force is perpendicular to the velocity, the work must be done by the electrostatic force instead.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between work, kinetic energy, and angular momentum, referencing the work-energy theorem and expressing curiosity about other potential physical meanings of different mathematical operations involving force and position.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of magnetic fields in doing work on charged particles, with some asserting that magnetic fields do not contribute to work, while others present results from simulations that suggest otherwise. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these findings.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the nature of the magnetic field and its effects, as well as the dependence on the definitions of work and energy in electromagnetic contexts. The discussion also touches on the complexities of angular momentum without reaching a consensus on the implications of the mathematical relationships presented.

DivergentSpectrum
Messages
149
Reaction score
15
i ran a simulation that calculates the trajectory of a particle in the presence of a magnetic field from maxwells equations.
it also calculates the work (line integral of force) and the kinetic energy gained(kinetic energy at the end of simulation minus kinetic energy at the beginning)
i was pretty surprised to see that the values are the same. i know its not a programming error.
here the magnetic field is constant(maybe that's why?)
B=3,5,10
and there is an electrostatic force.
E=-100[x,y,z]/R^3
(i know these differ by permissivity or permittivity of free space or whatever but it shouldn't matter, besides i get the same result with just a straight magnetic force)
initial conditions x,y,z=[3,1,2] and dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt=[1,4,3]
 

Attachments

  • conservative.jpg
    conservative.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 436
Physics news on Phys.org
To my understanding, a static, constant magnetic field does no work on a charged particle, so there should be no gain of kinetic energy.
 
Now this discussion starts again, and I try again: A magnetic field does no work on a particle.

A particle moving in an electromagnetic field obeys the equation of motion (for simplicity I use the non-relativistic expression)
[tex]m \ddot{x}=\vec{F}(t,\vec{x},\vec{v})=q \left (\vec{E}+\frac{\vec{v}}{c} \times \vec{B} \right ).[/tex]
The work done is
[tex]\frac{m}{2} [\vec{v}^2(t_2)-\vec{v}^2(t_1)] = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t \; \vec{v}(t) \cdot \vec{F}[t,\vec{x}(t),\vec{v}(t)]=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t \; q \vec{v}(t) \cdot \vec{E}[t,\vec{x}(t)] .[/tex]
Here, [itex]\vec{x}(t)[/itex] is the trajectory of the particle, i.e., a solution to the equation of motion. Then it doesn't matter, whether the force is conservative or not. It's only conservative, if the electric field is static, and the magnetic field never contributes to the work done (no matter whether the magnetic field is stationary or not or whether it's homogeneous or not).
 
ahh ok that makes sense the force is perpendicular to velocity so all the work is done by the electrostatic force.
What about other conserved quantities? ie angular momentum
 
bluntwcrackrap said:
it also calculates the work (line integral of force) and the kinetic energy gained(kinetic energy at the end of simulation minus kinetic energy at the beginning)
i was pretty surprised to see that the values are the same
These quantities are guaranteed to be the same, even for a nonconservative force like friction. The only requirement is that the object must be rigid.

The proof is called the work energy theorem.
 
i did some research and realized the integral of torque (position cross force) equals the change in angular momentum. its really kinda interesting when you think about it.
b
∫Force[itex]\bullet[/itex]Velocity *dt=kinetic energy gained from a to b.
a

and
b
∫Position[itex]\times[/itex]Force *dt=angular momentum gained from a to b
a

It makes me wonder what if you try crossing force and velocity?
or doing the dot product of position and force?
Do these have physical meanings also?

(sorry if I am being annoying with all the weird questions)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K