Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Does more electromagnetic mass mean that more electric field is emitted?

+ 0 like - 4 dislike
167 views

 Does a moving charge give more electric field since it has more electromagnetic mass ?

Or
Let I have a moving charge with speed 0.9c. kinetic energy hence gained is $m0.81 c^2$.
Total energy of electron has increased to $1.81mc^2$

Now, let I am moving with 0.9 c. I would see charge at rest. 
But it has $1.81mc^2$ energy. Does this increased energy emit more electric field?

[ I don't know how to use these equations.][2]


  [2]: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electromagnetic_Mass_of_a_Moving_Electron

Closed as per community consensus as the post is not graduate-level
asked May 24, 2016 in Closed Questions by anubhav (-30 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Jun 3, 2016 by Dilaton

This is not graduate-level and rather unclear, voting to close.

Voting to close.

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

The total energy $E=mc^2/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ contains the rest energy $mc^2$ and a kinetic part $T(v)=E(v)-mc^2$. In you reference frame there is no kinetic part. (Your formulas are wrong.) And the relativistic formula for $E$ is valid for neutral particles too.

The radiated energy depends on the particle charge, its velocity and acceleration. The notion of electromagnetic mass is misleading. There is a mass defect, which is real for compound "particles", but the rest energy is not of purely electromagnetic nature. Annihilation of electron and positron may occur to a couple of neutral particles other than photons, to a couple of neutrino and antineutrino, for example, i.e., via weak interaction.

Apart from the radiated field, there is a "near" field following the particle. The corresponding formulas for this field for a uniformly moving charge are given in textbooks.

answered May 24, 2016 by Vladimir Kalitvianski (22 points) [ revision history ]
edited May 25, 2016 by Vladimir Kalitvianski




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...