Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 16, 2013 at 14:10 comment added Diana Stevens Thanks so much, Mike! :) I haven't seen the L-W potential in class, though I did read through the material in your link. Thanks for that! I'm flattered!
May 16, 2013 at 14:09 vote accept Diana Stevens
May 16, 2013 at 13:52 comment added Mike BTW, welcome to physics.SE! This was a really nicely formulated question. And latex skills are always appreciated. :)
May 16, 2013 at 13:49 comment added Mike The problem is that Larmor's formula is only derived for the non-rel. case. You can actually modify it in this particular case, but unless you've seen the Liénard–Wiechert formula I linked to, you can't derive the correct expression -- which is synchrotron radiation, as xaxa pointed to. But even then, there are fancier things you can do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can make this problem arbitrarily hard, but I'll bet that your teacher just wanted you to solve the easy problem that you've shown us you can do -- unless synchrotron radiation has already come up in your class.
May 16, 2013 at 12:12 comment added Diana Stevens Do I simply throw in a $\gamma$ in front of $v$?
May 16, 2013 at 9:44 comment added Diana Stevens Thanks, Mike! :) I think I have now figured how to do it for the non-relativistic case (but I'm not very sure how to extend it to the relativistic case :-/ ) -- if I'm not mistaken, the NR case should be something of the following: $$F=e \vec v\times \vec B$$ Assuming circular motion and the magnetic field being perpendicular to the plane of motion, $$r=\frac{mv_{init}}{eB}$$ Therefore acceleration is $$a=\frac{v^2}{r}$$ The I can substitute it into Larmor's formula. Is that right? But is it not relativistic? I always get confused when doing relativistic cases :(
May 16, 2013 at 2:41 history edited Mike CC BY-SA 3.0
added 186 characters in body
May 16, 2013 at 2:35 history answered Mike CC BY-SA 3.0