Neat question. Let's define the "lab" reference frame to be the frame
in which the test electron is at rest. According to the premise of your
question, you have set up the wire to be electrically neutral in this
reference frame. This statement already includes the effect of Lorentz
contraction of the moving charges. If the positive and negative charged
particles in the wire have different average velocities, then the
charge per unit length of the wire depends on the reference frame, as
you point out, due to the different Lorentz contractions of the two
kinds of charges.
A perplexing question to ask then, is that since the charge density
on a segment of wire depends on how fast an observer is moving with
respect to that piece of wire, how come charge isn't created or
destroyed, just by looking at the same piece of wire in a different
way? As it turns out, all observers must agree on the total amount of
charge in a system, but they may disagree on its distribution.
Because total charge is conserved, it flows around typically in
loops, in electrical circuits. For every bit of wire which gains an
average negative charge under a Lorentz boost, an equal and opposite
positive charge must be observed somewhere else in a loop of wire. This
positive charge may be farther away from the test charge than the
negative one, giving rise to an unbalanced electrical force (in one
frame, which is interpreted as a magnetic force in another frame, so
long as the test electron is moving).
Now back to your situation -- you've got a wire with current
flowing in it and no net charge in the lab, but also a stationary
electron floating nearby. It feels no force. If we look at the same
system in another reference frame, we've got current flowing, a net
charge on the wire, and a moving test electron! It feels both
electrical and magnetic forces. But since the electron isn't
accelerating in the lab frame it cannot accelerate in any other frame,
and so the electrical and magnetic forces have to delicately cancel in
this case.
Mike W. and Tom
(published on 08/02/06)