The Magnetic Force as a Kinematical Consequence of the Thomas Precession

David C. Lush
Presented at PIERS 2013 Stockholm 14 August 2013

d.lush@comcast.net quantumskeptic.blogspot.com

Work in Progress
The following describes a work in progress, so is subject to revision As updates become available they will be posted as replacements at arxiv.org. (Search author: Lush, same title as for PIERS talk and paper)

Why a kinematics point of view?

Can start with a Coulomb force, in a reference frame where the field-source charge is stationary, and then get magnetic force present in other reference frames, without reference to electromagnetic fields Predicts new forces?
Unifying principle for non-gravitational fundamental forces?

Field-Source and Test Charged Particles

Test particle
(r,t) = (r t - r s , t)

qt , mt = Charge, mass

Source particle qs , ms Source particle r s (t) position and v s (t) velocity a s (t) = 0

r t (t) v t (t) a t (t)

Test particle position, velocity and acceleration

Lab frame observer

Magnetic force between two charges

The magnetic force is formally similar to a Coriolis force

Rotational pseudoforces review

Coriolis centrifugal Euler

Effective force in a coordinate system rotating with

angular velocity w is the force applied in the non-rotating system, plus Coriolis, centrifugal, and Euler pseudoforces.

Thomas precession
Translating and cross-accelerating reference frame appears to rotate A consequence of noncommutativity of non-colinear Lorentz boosts Invoked by Thomas to explain spin-orbit coupling anomaly Observer dependent Has to be observed mutually between two observers if seen by either

Angular Velocity of the Thomas Precession

for v/c << 1

Angular velocity of the rest frame of a particle with acceleration a and velocity v in the laboratory frame, as observed from the laboratory frame. (Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd ed, Eq. (11.119))

Thomas precession cannot generate rotational pseudoforces

An accelerating observer sees Thomas precession of inertial coordinate frames
Will present proof The accelerated observer sees a lack of pseudoforces as having dynamical effects (i.e., real forces acting)

Sign of the Angular Velocity of Thomas Precession, as Seen by Different Observers

Jackson Eq. (11.107) : , More generally: (see, e.g., Goldstein) So if (as seen from lab frame): The sign of the angular velocity of the Thomas precession of the lab frame is opposite that of the rest frame. (See also Malykin 2006.) with

Then (as seen from rest frame):

The Magnetic force as a Coriolis Force seen by the Test Particle Co-Moving Observer
The test particle co-moving observer (TPCMO) sees Thomas precession of both the source particle and laboratory frames Since the TPCMO knows that the test particle acceleration is purely radial (Coulombic) in the (inertial) source particle rest frame, he expects a Coriolis-like force to exist in the lab frame based on the relative angular velocity of the lab frame compared to the source frame

Relative Thomas Precession Angular Velocity of Lab Frame Compared to Source Frame, as seen by the Test Particle Co-Moving Observer
Angular velocity of Thomas precession of an inertial frame, as seen from an accelerated frame.

Lab frame angular velocity as seen from test particle rest frame.
Source particle rest frame (SRF) angular velocity as seen from test particle rest frame. Relative angular velocity of lab frame compared to SRF as seen from test particle rest frame.

The Magnetic Force as the Expected Coriolis Force Due to Relative Angular Velocity
relative angular velocity of lab frame compared to SRF as seen from test particle rest frame (from previous chart). expected Coriolis force in lab frame Substituting for gives

and had
The test particle acceleration is approximately Coulombic, obtaining (per chart 7)

Is the Magnetic Force a Coriolis or an AntiCoriolis Force?

The above derivation characterizes the magnetic force as a Coriolis force, but it is more properly an anti-Coriolis force The magnetic force is ultimately a consequence of the lack of Coriolis force in the source particle rest frame (an inertial frame), despite its appearance of rotation to the TPCMO

A More Rigorous Analysis of the Kinematics of the Two-Body Electromagnetic Problem

An exact relativistic-kinematic description of the twobody electromagnetic interaction is needed to check for consistency of physical law with relativistic covariance Starting in the source particle rest frame where the motion is easy to describe, obtain motion in lab frame by making a series of Lorentz transformations of the test particle position, first to the test particle rest frame, then to the lab frame
The expected result is a description of the motion in the lab frame, as predicted by the TPCMO

Today will present an overview of first part

Contend the results shows the necessity of anti-Euler and anticentrifugal forces in addition to the anti-Coriolis force

Coordinate Systems for Derivation of Thomas Precession (as Seen by Test-Particle Co-Moving Observer)
Test particle (t.p.) and co-located, comoving observer

(r,t)
Test particle momentary rest frames (s,x)
= test particle position in source rest frame

(r,t)
t is the t.p. proper time, r is the t.p. displacement
from the field-source particle, as observed by the observer co-moving with the test particle

(s,x ) (s,x) = (0,0) at (r,t)= (0,t0) (s,x ) = (0,0) at (r,t)= (0,t0+ dt)

Source particle rest frame (equivalent to lab frame with a stationary source particle, for this analysis)

Significance of the Accelerated Observer

Same legitimacy as an inertial observer (the principle of relativity)

Must be able to describe physics in inertial frames based on observations in his frame

Prior Work: Bergstrom

Similarities: Accelerated observer, mass factor cancels Differences: "mosaic" avoids expectation of centrifugal/Euler forces Mosaic argument disproved by sequential Lorentz transformations of displacement?

Also notable: observes effect applies to gravity too; implies gravitomagnetism

Counter-argument to Bergstroms claim of impossibility of centrifugal effects of Thomas precession

Sequential Lorentz transformations of displacement should obtain directly antiEuler and anti-Centrifugal forces (work still in progress) Both have explicit dependence on interparticle displacement Have preliminary result for test particle rest frame: have obtained anti-Euler force

Velocity of Test Particle Relative to Source Particle as Seen by Observer Co-Moving and Co-Located with the Test Particle
test particle velocity relative to source particle, as seen by TPCMO
where

and (see Moller, Theory of Relativity, 1952 edition, Eq. (146), page 257)(or 3rd chart following)

Thomas precession of source rest frame as seen by TPCMO derived by successive Lorentz transformations of displacement
Lorentz Transformation of Test Particle Position from Source Rest Frame to Test Particle Momentary Rest Frame at time t = t0

Lorentz Transformation of Test Particle Position from Source Rest Frame to Test Particle Momentary Rest Frame at time t = t0 + dt

Variation of interparticle displacement as observed by TPCMO with respect to time in source rest frame

where Find that:

so

Time flow at the Field Source Particle as Seen by Test Particle Co-Moving Observer
LT of time in TP momentary rest frame to SRF: Evaluate at location of field source particle :

Then:

To order

Test Particle Velocity Relative to Source Particle as Seen From Test Particle (Fermi-Walker) Rest Frame

Reduces to (to order b 2)

where as expected

Relative Acceleration as Seen by Test Particle CoMoving Observer

Had

so

Apply chain rule as

Thomas Precession Angular Velocity Relations

Finding the Anti-Coriolis and Anti-Euler Accelerations in the Test Particle Rest Frame Acceleration

Anti-Euler terms are found exactly

Cant find this term

Only have half of this term

Finding the Anti-Coriolis and Anti-Euler Accelerations in the TPRF Acceleration

Based on relativistic law of inertia, need a Lorentz factor in derivative, with respect to proper time, which obtains

(Expected antiCoriolis acceleration) Can re-write with anti-Coriolis force as

Finding the Anti-Coriolis and Anti-Euler Accelerations in the TPRF Acceleration

Relative acceleration in the test particle momentary rest frame

Continuing effort is to interpret and refine this result, then complete kinematic analysis to obtain description of motion in laboratory frame.

Anti-centrifugal force
Implication of lack of rotational pseudoforces: a missing centrifugal force predicts an always-attractive force (even for like charges)

Strength of Anti-centrifugal force compared to Coulomb repulsion

Expect Exact T.P. formula per Jackson: (for b For circular motion (and neglecting delay): 1)

Assuming equal masses and equating with relativistic Coulomb force, then solving for R obtains :

for equal to the proton mass. This is about 100 times smaller than the measured proton size.

Strong magnetic force

Exact magnetic force in Lienard-Wiechert magnetic acceleration field:

Evaluate for particle 1 accelerated by Coulomb field of particle 2 and assuming circular motion to obtain:

This magnetic force is always attractive, even for like charges.

Completeness of Lorentz force?

Missing magnetic-like force?
If the field-source particle is free to accelerate, then expect an additional magnetic-like force, with mass ratio factor
Predicts an increase in strength of spin-orbit coupling in hydrogen by factor (1 + 1836)/1836 Unable to find basis in L-W acceleration fields

Anti-Euler force? (Atomic scale dynamical effects of terms at order v^2/c^2?)

Next steps
Full relativistic kinematical proofs: order v^2/c^2 gives magnetic, part of anti-Euler force Look for more T.P.-related forces in Maxwell-Lorentz ED
Full relativistic kinematical proofs: order v^4/c^4 gives anti-centrifugal force, more of anti-Euler force

Study time-symmetric dynamics of strong magnetic force

Conclusion
Relativistic-kinematical approach is a new way to think about and describe electromagnetic forces Relativistic-kinematical approach may reveal new electromagnetic forces Relativistic-kinematical approach is possibly a new explanation for fundamental forces

Backup/Extra

Submittal History
Submitted to Physica Scripta Sept 2010
Title: Does Thomas Precession Cause Rotational Pseudoforces in Particle Rest Frames? Sent out for review, then review was cancelled due to (my) statement that the submittal was only a plausibility argument for the magnetic force being caused by T.P.
It is (still) only an order v^2/c^2 analysis

Pseudoforces of Rotation Do Not Occur in Thomas Precessing Reference Frames

For example, an accelerated observer sees Thomas Precession of inertial frames

See also UC Berkeley tutorial article by R. G. Littlejohn linked in Wikipedia article on Thomas precession: (page 8), ``... if we fix ourselves to the parallel transported frame, we will feel no centrifugal forces.''

Schild
Full relativistic ED description of two-particle circular motion; time symmetric ED
No negative relativistic mass bound state (Sternglass mentioned) No anti-centrifugal force found, but did not invoke Coulomb acceleration; assumed only circular-centripetal acceleration Also, anti-centrifugal force wants to vanish under time-symmetry

Problem 11.3 from Jackson