Why doesn't an electron influence itself in Maxwells theory?

In summary, there is a problem in classical electrodynamics regarding the self-force on an accelerated electron due to its own electromagnetic field. Various physicists have attempted to solve this problem, but it remains an open question. One possible solution is to model the electromagnetic field of an electron as an elastic object attached to the charge, which would require knowing the full past path of the electron to accurately calculate the reaction. Analogously, calculating the force on a fishing float in water requires solving the time development of the water waves.
  • #1
DerHutmacher
4
0
Hello everyone, for quite some time I am struggling with the following question: If we consider the action for a single particle in Classical Electrodynamics
$$S[x(\tau),A(x)]=\int - m\ ds - \int d^4x\ A_{\mu}(x)j^{\mu}(x) -\frac{1}{4}\int d^4x F^{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\mu\nu}(x) $$ with $$ds= \sqrt{\eta_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^{\mu}(\tau) \ \dot{x}^{\nu}(\tau) }d\tau$$ and $$j^{\mu}(x)=e \int d\tau \ \dot{x}^{\mu}(\tau)\delta^{(4)}(x-x(\tau))$$ ,where $$x(\tau)$$ is the parametrization of the world line, $$\eta_{\mu\nu}$$ the lorentz metric and $$F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$$ the field strength tensor. Now by variation of this, we get the usual equations of motion $$\partial_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu}=j^{\mu}$$ and $$-m\frac{d}{d\tau}\frac{\dot{x}_{\mu}}{\sqrt{\dot{x}^2}}=eF_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^{\nu}$$. My confusion now comes from the appearence of the same Field strength tensor $$F_{\mu\nu}$$ in the equations of motion for the electron as well as being the object that is determined only by the electrons world line. Therefore I am asking, if in principle the electrons field is also having an influence on itself in classical electrodynamics, since only according to the given action it should. As given by Feynman (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_26.html) the field of an uniformly moving electron diverges at its position, if we consider it to be a point charge. I would like to know if there is some kind of classical treatment for this issue and maybe someone can lift my confusion. If there is some explanation from the modern point of view I would also be glad to hear it.

Thank you
Lev
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Jackson (Classical Electrodynamics, Chapter 16) has a fairly long section about this. I think he ends up saying that, bar few special cases, when electron motion becomes rapid enough for it own electromagnetic radiation to affect its motion, the equations of motion start predicting unstable behaviour. Wasn't it Feynman who was trying to fix this problem (theoretically).
 
  • Like
Likes DerHutmacher
  • #3
Also, there is not necessarily a problem with the electromagnetic field of an electron diverging. One way to fix it is obviously allow for finite size of the electron, and then take that size to zero at the very end of the calculation -maybe it won't affect he result. Another one is to allow generalized functions into the expressions, e.g. for the point charge (##q##) at the origin the charge density is

##q\delta\left(\mathbf{r}\right)##

so electric field is

##\boldsymbol{\nabla}.\mathbf{E}=\frac{q}{\epsilon_0}\delta\left(\mathbf{r}\right)##

##\mathbf{E}=\frac{q\mathbf{r}}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r^3}##

Which works, in the generalized sense, even at the origin. And if you would ask for the derivative of electric field (along some vector ##\mathbf{a}##), you would get:

##\left(\mathbf{a}.\boldsymbol{\nabla}\right)\mathbf{E}=\frac{q}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r^3}\left(\mathbf{a} - 3\frac{\left(\mathbf{a}.\mathbf{r}\right)\mathbf{r}}{r^2}\right) + \frac{q}{3\epsilon_0}\mathbf{a}\delta\left(\mathbf{r}\right)##

I might be getting it wrong, but first check seems to indicate this remains valid even at the origin
 
  • Like
Likes DerHutmacher
  • #4
I wrote about this problem in my physics blog on May 17, 2019. The "self-force" on an accelerated electron, by its own changing electromagnetic field, is an open problem in physics. The self-force in many cases is so weak that we cannot measure it experimentally.

Larmor, Abraham, Lorentz, Feynman, Rohrlich, and others have worked on this problem. A specific question is, if there is a radiative "reaction" on a charge which is accelerated linearly with a constant acceleration. Wikipedia lists that as an open problem.

I am using a model where the electromagnetic field of an electron behaves like an elastic object attached to the charge. The mass of the elastic object might contain all the rest mass of the electron. When you accelerate the electron, the elastic object will deform and oscillate in various ways. Calculating the exact force it causes to the electron would be complicated.

You cannot calculate the behavior of the system from the current position, velocity, and higher derivatives of the electron alone. To calculate the reaction, we must know the full past path of the electron, so that we can calculate the current state and oscillations of the elastic object attached to the electron.

The Larmor formula and various other formulas try to derive the radiative reaction from badly incomplete information. That is the reason why they produce paradoxes like "signals from the future" (see the Abraham-Lorentz force in Wikipedia).

An analogue is water waves. If you throw a fishing float into water, it will produce complicated wave patterns. To calculate the force on the float, you need to solve the time development of the water waves - and that is not easy. An electron is like a fishing float in the electromagnetic field which fills spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes DerHutmacher

1. Why doesn't an electron influence itself in Maxwell's theory?

According to Maxwell's theory, the interaction between charged particles is mediated by the electromagnetic field. Since an electron is a charged particle, it can interact with other charged particles through the electromagnetic field. However, it does not interact with itself because it is not possible for an electron to emit and absorb its own electromagnetic field.

2. How does Maxwell's theory explain the lack of self-influence in electrons?

Maxwell's theory is based on the principle of action and reaction, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of an electron, its interaction with other charged particles is the result of the action of its own electromagnetic field and the reaction of the other particle's electromagnetic field. Since an electron cannot interact with its own field, there is no action to produce a reaction, thus no self-influence.

3. Is this lack of self-influence a limitation of Maxwell's theory?

No, the lack of self-influence in Maxwell's theory is not a limitation. In fact, it is a fundamental principle of electromagnetism known as the principle of causality. This principle states that an effect cannot precede its cause, and since an electron cannot interact with its own field, it cannot be influenced by itself.

4. Are there any other theories that can explain the lack of self-influence in electrons?

There are other theories, such as quantum electrodynamics, that can also explain the lack of self-influence in electrons. In quantum electrodynamics, the interaction between charged particles is described by the exchange of virtual particles, rather than the classical electromagnetic field. This theory also supports the principle of causality and explains the lack of self-influence in electrons.

5. Can an electron ever influence itself in any way?

No, according to current scientific understanding, an electron cannot influence itself in any way. This is a fundamental principle of electromagnetism and is supported by various experimental evidence. However, some theories, such as string theory, propose the existence of higher-dimensional particles that could potentially interact with an electron in a way that may seem like self-influence, but this is still a topic of ongoing research and debate.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
896
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
141
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
842
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
582
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Back
Top