Galilean transform and the maxwell equations

In summary, the Maxwell equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation, but the electric field is not.
  • #1
GarageDweller
104
0
So I keep hearing that the maxwell equations are variant under Galilean transform. Tired of simply accepting it without seeing the maths, I decided to do the transformation on my own.

To make things easy, I only tried Gauss' law, furthermore I constricted the field to the x-axis only. So I have E(x,t).

∇°E(x,t)=ρ(x)/ε

So now I will transform to another inertial frame x' that is moving with speed u with respect to the original frame x.
x'=x-ut
t'=t

What originally was ∂E/∂x=ρ(x)/ε became ∂E/∂x'-(1/u)∂E/∂t=ρ'(x')/ε.
Is this basically what they mean when they say it isn't invariant?

I looked at this again, and noticed that if the electric field is independent of time, then the Galilean transform of this turns out to be invariant, coincidence?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF!

Hi GarageDweller! Welcome to PF! :smile:
What originally was ∂E/∂x=ρ(x)/ε became ∂E/∂x'-(1/u)∂E/∂t=ρ'(x')/ε.
Is this basically what they mean when they say it isn't invariant?

Yup! :smile:
I looked at this again, and noticed that if the electric field is independent of time, then the Galilean transform of this turns out to be invariant, coincidence?

Not really … if there's no time, then there's no difference between galilean and relativistic, is there? :wink:
 
  • #3
oops, missed that
 
  • #4
However, I tried transforming the equation by the Lorentz transform, and yet I'm still getting something different, I think I may have a conceptual error here, my transformation process was:

∂E/∂x=∂E/∂x' * ∂x'/∂x + ∂E/∂t' * ∂t'/∂x

x'=γ(x-ut)
t'=γ(1-ux/c^2)

Which gives me..

∂E/∂x=∂E/∂x' * γ + ∂E/∂t' * (-γu/c^2)

Exactly how does this reduce to ∂E/∂x' ??
 
  • #5
(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)
GarageDweller said:
∂E/∂x=∂E/∂x' * γ + ∂E/∂t' * (-γu/c^2)

Exactly how does this reduce to ∂E/∂x' ??

because (from the ampere-maxwell law) ∂E/∂t = J …

so the RHS ρ * γ + J * (-γu/c2) = ρ' :wink:

from the pf library on Maxwell's equations

(on the RHS, * denotes a pseudovector: a "curl" must be a pseudovector, the dual of a vector)

Changing to units in which [itex]\varepsilon_0[/itex] [itex]\mu_0[/itex] and [itex]c[/itex] are 1, we may combine the two 3-vectors [itex]\mathbf{E}[/itex] and [itex]\mathbf{B}[/itex] into the 6-component Faraday 2-form [itex](\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B})[/itex], or its dual, the Maxwell 2-form [itex](\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B})^*[/itex].

And we may define the current 4-vector J as [itex](Q_f,\mathbf{j}_f)[/itex].

Then the differential versions of Gauss' Law and the Ampère-Maxwell Law can be combined as:

[tex]\nabla \times (\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B})^*\,=\,(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ ,\ \frac{\partial\mathbf{E}}{\partial t}\,+\,\nabla\times\mathbf{B})^*\,=\,J^*[/tex]

and those of Gauss' Law for Magnetism and Faraday's Law can be combined as:

[tex]\nabla \times (\mathbf{E};\mathbf{B}) = (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}\ ,\ \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t}\,+\,\nabla\times\mathbf{E})^*\,=\,0[/tex]​
 
  • #6
Ooh right forgot bout the charge density term, thanks lol
So basically the lorentz factors all get canceled and the J terms go away on either side?

Oh and one more thing, what's the exact process of changing p into p'?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
GarageDweller said:
So basically the lorentz factors all get canceled and the J terms go away on either side?

sorry, not following you :confused:

i always prefer to translate everything into wedge (Λ) products when dealing with maxwell's laws

(Ex,Ey,Ez;Bx,By,Bz) becomes Ex(tΛx) + Ey(tΛy) + Ez(tΛz) + Bx(yΛz) + By(zΛx) + Bz(xΛy)

(ρ,Jx,Jy,Jz) becomes ρt + Jxx + Jyy + Jzz (and similarly for div)

and you use aΛb = -bΛa, aΛa = 0, xΛyΛz = t*, yΛzΛt = x* etc​
Oh and one more thing, what's the exact process of changing p into p'?

ρ is part of the 4-vector (ρ,Jx,Jy,Jz) :wink:
 
  • #8
To elaborate on what Tim is saying: once you get into relativity and EM, it's helpful to get used to the idea that the EM field isn't a simple vector field. Rather, just as a vector field is a combination of directions, there are bivector fields which are combinations of planes. That's what the EM field is. You can write its six components as

[tex]F = E_x e_t \wedge e_x + E_y e_t \wedge e_y + E_z e_t \wedge e_z + B_x e_y \wedge e_z + B_y e_z \wedge e_x + B_z e_x \wedge e_y[/tex]

Each of the [itex]e_\mu \wedge e_\nu[/itex] represents a plane spanning the [itex]e_\mu, e_\nu[/itex] directions.

Because the EM field is a set of planes, the Lorentz transformation works a little differently. It acts on each basis vector in a wedge, so for example, under a Lorentz transformation [itex]\underline L[/itex], we have the tx-plane [itex]e_t \wedge e_x \mapsto \underline L(e_t) \wedge \underline L(e_x)[/itex]. If the boost itself is in the tx plane, however, it must leave that plane invariant, even though both vectors get rotated. Similarly, since both [itex]e_y, e_z[/itex] are out of the plane, neither get transformed, and they're left invariant.

What's nice about using the Faraday bivector [itex]F[/itex] is that, without matter, Maxwell's equations boil down to a single expression:

[tex]\nabla F = - \mu_0 j[/tex]

(The sign depends on your metric convention and how you assemble [itex]F[/itex], but this is the convention I prefer.)
 

1. What is the Galilean transform?

The Galilean transform is a mathematical transformation that describes the relationship between the measurements of space and time in different reference frames. It is used to convert measurements from one inertial frame of reference to another, without considering the effects of gravity or electromagnetic fields.

2. How does the Galilean transform relate to Maxwell's equations?

The Galilean transform is a fundamental concept in classical mechanics, while Maxwell's equations describe the behavior of electromagnetic fields. The Galilean transform can be used to study the effects of relative motion on electromagnetic phenomena, as well as the behavior of light in different reference frames.

3. Can the Galilean transform be applied to all types of motion?

No, the Galilean transform is only applicable to motions that are considered to be "inertial," meaning they are moving at a constant velocity without any external forces acting on them. It cannot be applied to non-inertial frames, such as those experiencing acceleration.

4. How were the Galilean transform and Maxwell's equations connected in the past?

In the 19th century, scientists believed in the concept of an "aether," which was thought to be the medium through which electromagnetic waves traveled. The Galilean transform was used to explain how the speed of light remained constant in different inertial frames, while Maxwell's equations were used to describe the behavior of electromagnetic waves in the aether. However, later experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, disproved the existence of the aether and led to the development of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which replaced the Galilean transform with the Lorentz transform.

5. How does the Galilean transform differ from the Lorentz transform?

The Galilean transform does not account for the effects of relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction, while the Lorentz transform does. The Galilean transform also assumes that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, while the Lorentz transform takes into account the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. In general, the Lorentz transform is a more accurate and comprehensive way to describe the relationship between space and time in different reference frames.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
146
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
599
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
989
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
923
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
Back
Top