Work/Energy in a Magnetic Field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of work and energy in a magnetic field, particularly questioning the source of work when magnetic forces cannot perform work. Participants clarify that while magnetic forces influence momentum, they do not contribute to changes in kinetic energy, which is instead due to internal electrostatic forces. The term "magnetic potential energy" is debated, as it can be misleading since the magnetic field itself does not do work. However, it is suggested that attributing the work to internal electric forces allows the term to remain relevant. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of understanding energy dynamics in magnetic systems.
MyoPhilosopher
Messages
41
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
A compass needle has a magnetic moment of 𝜇. At its location, the magnitude of the Earth’s magnetic field is 𝑩 northward at 𝜃 below the horizontal. Identify the orientations of the needle that represent (a) the minimum potential energy and (b) the maximum potential energy of the needle–field system. (c) How much work must be done on the system to move the needle from the minimum to the maximum potential energy orientation?
Relevant Equations
ΔU = -μBcos(θ)
Sorry if I am asking in the wrong fashion as I am new.

The above questions are easily solvable:
1) U = -μBcos(0)
2) U = -μBcos(180)
3) W = ΔU = 2) - 1)

My question is more related to some theory: where is this work/energy coming from since a magnetic force, to my knowledge can't do "work"?
What force is doing -W (minus W), is it simply the magnetic field, or is there another concrete equation to demonstrate what exactly is happening.

Thank you for anyone that can explain or possibly ask me directional questions
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
It's one of those bizarre situations in physics where a force is responsible for the change in momentum (angular momentum in this case since the needle rotates) but is not responsible for the change in the (rotational) kinetic energy (of the needle). For the latter are responsible internal electrostatic forces that appear inside the needle.
Another example of such a force is the friction between a car's wheels and the road. We all know that a car cannot move without friction, however we all also know that the work isn't done by friction but by the car's engine. So friction is responsible for the change in the momentum of the car, but internal forces at car's engine are responsible for the work done that increases the kinetic energy of the car.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes MyoPhilosopher
Delta2 said:
It's one of those bizarre situations in physics where a force is responsible for the change in momentum (angular momentum in this case since the needle rotates) but is not responsible for the change in the (rotational) kinetic energy (of the needle). For the latter are responsible internal electrostatic forces that appear inside the needle.
Another example of such a force is the friction between a car's wheels and the road. We all know that a car cannot move without friction, however we all also know that the work isn't done by friction but by the car's engine. So friction is responsible for the change in the momentum of the car, but internal forces at car's engine are responsible for the work done that increases the kinetic energy of the car.

Thank you for taking the time, great answer!
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
Delta2 said:
It's one of those bizarre situations in physics where a force is responsible for the change in momentum (angular momentum in this case since the needle rotates) but is not responsible for the change in the (rotational) kinetic energy (of the needle). For the latter are responsible internal electrostatic forces that appear inside the needle.
Another example of such a force is the friction between a car's wheels and the road. We all know that a car cannot move without friction, however we all also know that the work isn't done by friction but by the car's engine. So friction is responsible for the change in the momentum of the car, but internal forces at car's engine are responsible for the work done that increases the kinetic energy of the car.

Nice answer!

So it really shouldn't be referred to as "magnetic potential energy" then, right?

The change in the potential energy should be the work done by the magnetic force, but the magnetic force can do no work. I guess it is just a shorthand way of referring to the potential energy associated with a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field. Saying the electric potential energy in this case, would just confuse people.
 
Rolls With Slipping said:
Nice answer!

So it really shouldn't be referred to as "magnetic potential energy" then, right?

The change in the potential energy should be the work done by the magnetic force, but the magnetic force can do no work. I guess it is just a shorthand way of referring to the potential energy associated with a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field. Saying the electric potential energy in this case, would just confuse people.
Well yes the magnetic field can't do work on matter, hence the term magnetic potential energy becomes problematic at first glance. However we can attribute the work of the internal electric forces as (pseudo) work of the magnetic field force and this can make the magnetic potential energy term viable again.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top