Dear Chiro,

Whether moving or not, like sign charges will always attract and opposite sign charges will always repel each other.

In your second experiment, they magnetically attract, by falling into least action magnetic antiparallel alignment (inverse cube law of the distance), even though they keep repelling electrically (inverse square law of distance).

These two interaction processes are independent of each other.

If the two wires are close to each other, the magnetic interaction forces the electrons flowing in one wire to align in antiparallel magnetic spin with respect to the electrons flowing in the second wire, because antiparallel is a least action process with respect to parallel magnetic spin alignment.

Best Regards

André

Hello André,

I want to thank you once again for you previous and current responses to my questions.

I think it was a slip of the pen when you said : " Whether moving or not, like sign charges will always attract and opposite sign charges will always repel each other. " since it is the other way around (at least if the charges are at rest), however this is a non issue.

There are two important things :

Thank you, your answer made me think of something I will try it and get back to you

Dear Chiro,

In your first experiment, if it was with "real" electrons, the magnetic interaction would be at play also.

If you get them close enough to each other, they will automatically switch to least action antiparallel magnetic alignment, despite their mutual Coulomb repulsion.

This is why two hydrogen atom can link up as a H2 molecule, because the two electron associate in antiparallel magnetic covalent bound between the two protons.

So both interaction types are always present.

This was confirmed by the Kotler et al experiment in 2014:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

in the image above, you can see the relation between inverse cube and inverse square interaction.

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

Thank you for the answer. Maybe I wasn't very clear in my first description of the experiments. I found the answer to the question.

I want to start by thanking you for giving me the idea of thinking about the spin-spin interaction, to be honest I neglected it since what I was looking at was only the intrinsic "charge" property of the particle and not its spin.

The force that is created by putting the charges into motion is not the spin-spin interaction, since to my humble knowledge this one exists when the charges are at rest (as you stated), but the Lorentz force (a moving charge in a magnetic field), my mistake was : Not accounting for the contraction of the perpendicular component of the electric field, when changing the reference frame.

but still thank you for your answer, i just downloaded your article (the one containing the image with the interaction forces), I hope I will have time to read it in detail.

I still have one question, maybe naive : I chose to use positive charges (protons) to avoid the spin-spin interaction, was that wise ? or do they too have an intrinsic spin property.

Chiro

Dear Chiro,

You are right, the force that sets charges into motion and provides its momentum energy is the Coulomb force.

But the relative densities of the ambient E and B fields of the Lorentz equation are what defines their direction of motion. For example, equal ambient energy density between ambient E and B fields causes an electron to move in a straight line. Increasing the intensity of both fields causes the electron to move faster, in accordance with v=E/B, which is drawn from the Lorentz equation.

Your question is not naïve at all. Quite the contrary.

Using protons does not circumvent the spin-spin interaction, it rather makes it more complex, because contrary to the electron, the proton is not elementary, just like the whole solar system is not a "celestial body". The proton is a "system of particles" that has a "resultant spin".

This resultant spin is made of the combination of the spins of its inner real elementary subcomponents, 2 up quarks and 1 down quark plus those of their 3 carrier-photons. A very complex configuration not easily visualized, that involves that two of the quarks are always in default parallel spin alignment while the third one is in antiparallel spin alignment with respect to the other two.

Elementary particles carrier-photons E and B fields can be considered being the ambient E and B fields that are dealt with with the Lorentz equation.

If you wish to use a positive unit charge to oppose that of the electron, you would obtain cleaner results if you consider using the positron.

All cases of electron-positron interaction are covered by the various positronium configurations. Extensively documented.

Best Regards

André

Thank you very much, your answer is appreciated.

Best regards

Chiro

Dear Newgato,

Your question is answered in textbooks; and is as that indeed, at parallel motion of the same [“+” or “-“] charges they both - attract because of the magnetic force , and repulse because of the electric force.

At that, if some free charged bodies have [equal, for simplicity to write here] masses m, in the frame where they are at rest they repulse by a Coulomb force, F, only; and move so in opposite directions, say, along Y-axis, with the accelerations a=F/m.

If the system of charges/bodies above is moving in a lab frame, then between charges the magnetic attractive force appears, however at that the electric force increases also, so they in the lab frame move also oppositely. At that the resulting force in lab frame becomes be lesser then in “stationary case” in Lorentz factor. Besides, the inertial masses of the moving bodies increase in the Lorentz factor also, however since clocks in the rest frame tick slower in squared Lorentz factor [γ2], the measured acceleration of the bodies in the rest frame remains be the same as that is at the charges rest.

Cheers