What's different between electrons and planet under a central force?

AI Thread Summary
Electrons exhibit circular motion in a magnetic field due to the Lorentz force, which acts perpendicular to their velocity, resulting in centripetal acceleration. In contrast, planets follow elliptical orbits under gravitational influence because gravity adheres to an inverse square law, leading to conic sections as solutions to the orbital equations. This fundamental difference arises from the nature of the forces: while gravity is a central force that decreases with the square of the distance, the magnetic force acting on charged particles like electrons is not governed by the same inverse square relationship. The discussion also touches on the historical context of atomic models, where early theories likened electrons to planets in a solar system, but quantum physics later revealed that electrons do not have fixed paths or positions, complicating the classical view. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for grasping the principles of electromagnetism and gravity in physics.
Student08
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Why electrons do a circumferential motion under the magnetic force and planets do a elliptical motion under the gravity? I don't understand this because the magnetic force and the gravity are all central force. Can anyone tell me what's the difference between them, in words, mathematics or in physics principle. I'm a high school student who want to know about this. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Magnetic forces are central? That's news to me!

Orbits are elliptical (or hyperbolic, depending on energy) because gravity is an inverse square law. Conic sections are the solutions to the orbit equation for an inverse square law. Why is gravity an inverse square law? Good question!

Electrons move in circles in a magnetic field, on the other hand, for different reasons.

I'd elaborate a bit more, but it's 5 in the morning and I'd kinda like to sleep before the sun comes up. So instead I'll kindly refer you to scienceworld, which has all sorts of nice equations with little explanation. Depending on what level of high school student you are, it may or may not be very enlightening.

Electromagnetic Field:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticField.html

The Lorentz Force (Electromagnetic force, basically):
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzForce.html

The Gravitational Force:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html

The electromagnetic field page has a nice little derivation of the motion of a charge in a constant electromagnetic field.

And welcome to the forums.

cookiemonster
 
Originally posted by cookiemonster
Magnetic forces are central? That's news to me!

Thanks for your nice explanations and references. Central here I mean in the centre of the orbit. I'm in grade 11, but I still can't follow you well. I will study more. Then, If the magnetic force is inverse to the radius? I know I may ask a stupid question. But they really puzzle me.
 
Originally posted by Student08
Originally posted by cookiemonster
Magnetic forces are central? That's news to me!

Thanks for your nice explanations and references. Central here I mean in the centre of the orbit. I'm in grade 11, but I still can't follow you well. I will study more. Then, If the magnetic force is inverse to the radius? I know I may ask a stupid question. But they really puzzle me.

In classical physics the electric force follows the same inverse square law as Newton's gravity. That would hold the elecrically charged electrons in classical orbits, just like a little solar system, and about 1900 that was the theory.

But even at that time there was a problem with the little solar system model of the atom. All electromagnetism is governed, so they understood at that time, by Maxwell's equations. And Maxwell's equations say that an accelerated charge must radiate electromagnetic waves and lose energy that way. And turning aside from a straight line path, as in orbiting, is acceleration. So why don't the electrons in the atom radiate and lose energy?

Well to collapse a lot of history, quantum physics was discovered, and it was seen that the electrons really don't have a well defined position or path, those things are only defined probabilistically. So electromagnetism is saved, but quantum weirdness comes in.
 
It may be shown from the equations of electromagnetism, by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860’s, that the speed of light in the vacuum of free space is related to electric permittivity (ϵ) and magnetic permeability (μ) by the equation: c=1/√( μ ϵ ) . This value is a constant for the vacuum of free space and is independent of the motion of the observer. It was this fact, in part, that led Albert Einstein to Special Relativity.
Back
Top