Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree with the parent comment that the article was quite good and useful, although I do have a nit to pick with the section on unification of the electric and magnetic fields. I think needs to look at an additional scenario.

That section looks at three scenarios:

1. An electrically neutral straight wire with an electron current and a test charge near the wire moving in parallel to it at the same velocity as the electrons in the electron current, observed from an observer stationary with respect to the positive charges in the wire analyzed without taking into account relativity.

The analysis shows that there is no electrostatic force on the test charge because the wire is electrically neutral, but there is a magnetic force because the test charge is moving in the magnetic field caused by the electron current.

(Nit within a nit: the drawing for this shows the positive and negative charges in the wire separated with the positive charges quite a bit closer to the test charge. That would result in an electric field from the wire that would attract the test charge. Maybe insert a short note saying that the positive and negative charges in the wire are actually mixed together so that their electric fields cancel outside the wire?)

2. Same as #1 except the observer is stationary with respect to the test charge.

The observer now sees no electron current in the wire, but does see a current from the positive charges. But the magnetic field from that positive current should not exert a force on the test charge because magnetic fields only affect moving charges and the test charge is not moving in the observer's frame.

3. The Lorentz contraction is introduced, and #2 is re-analyzed taking that into account. That Lorentz contraction applied to the positive current manifests to the observer as an increased density of positive charges. There wire now appears to the observer to no longer be electrically neutral. It has a net positive charge and the resulting electric fields attracts the electron to the wire.

What's missing is circling back and looking at scenario #1 again but including the Lorentz contraction. In scenario #1 the observer sees the negative charges moving, so should see increased negative charge density due to the Lorentz contraction, and the wire should appear to them to have a net negative charge, which would try to repel the test charge.

#1 with Lorentz included then is a fight between the magnetic attraction and the electrostatic repulsion.

Assuming objective reality and so requiring the test charge to actually feel the same force no matter who is observing we can infer that if the electrostatic force toward the wire in #3 is F then the magnetic force toward the wire in #1 must be 2F, which when opposed by the -F electrostatic force from the Lorentz contraction of the negative charges in the wire gives a net force toward the wire of F.



Thank you for the feedback. I'll review my notes and see if I can clarify this section - my key point there was simply to show that the magnetic field isn't really necessary - I wanted to show that it's all part of relativistic contractions made by the electric field. If I made any errors I give you my sincere apologies. Btw if you want to make edits to my work directly - you can find it as it's fully open source: https://github.com/photonlines/Intuitive-Guide-to-Maxwells-E...


> my key point there was simply to show that the magnetic field isn't really necessary - I wanted to show that it's all part of relativistic contractions made by the electric field.

This isn't quite right, there are field configurations where the magnetic field doesn't vanish in any reference frame. This is actually the typical case: consider, for instance, two point charges moving relative to one another.

The right takeaway from SR isn't that the magnetic field is fake and the electric field is real, it's that both magnetic and electric fields are frame-dependent and it's the electromagnetic field tensor that's the real physical object.


You're 100% correct. The explanations I was reading gave me the impression that we can get rid of the magnetic field - but this only works in special cases. Right now I'm reviewing my notes and realizing that yup - they're both needed and will need to modify my explanation there or simply get rid of it entirely and keep things simple. Once again - thank you for the correction - you're a life saver this is definitely something which I overlooked and I wish I had more time to explain properly!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: