3 ms·
That's the thing though, in the article the charged object does not move relative to the rod. The rod, object, and person B are stationary relative to each othe
by DangitBobby 5y ago
That's the thing though, in the article the charged object does not move relative to the rod. The rod, object, and person B are stationary relative to each other. I was actually really surprised to read that two charged objects moving with the same velocity relative to each other generates a magnetic field from A's perspective.
- whatshisface 5y agoTwo long charged rods moving with the same velocity relative to each other are two parallel wires carrying current, the second of which is a typical and easy-to-calculate example of electromagnetic attraction. In fact, that situation is so prototypical that it is used to define the Ampere in terms of what current is required to produce a certain force between parallel wires. [0] [0] http://www.physics.louisville.edu/cldavis/phys299/notes/mag_force_2wires.html http://www.physics.louisville.edu/cldavis/phys299/notes/mag_...
- thriftwy 5y agoIn this scenario, rods are stationary but they have current running in them - a different situation. Can it be translated to the relativistic one? Maybe what they really wanted to say is "there is a speed c at which the charge of a moving rod is indistinguishable of current running through stationary rod"? Now that would make a lot of sense.
- whatshisface 5y agoIt's not different as far as electrodynamics is concerned. The motion of the charge is what matters; whether or not the neutral part is stationary or moving is of no concern.