Galilean transform and the maxwell equations


by GarageDweller
Tags: maxwell's equations
GarageDweller
GarageDweller is offline
#1
Jun23-12, 12:51 AM
P: 104
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?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#2
Jun23-12, 03:18 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167
Hi GarageDweller! Welcome to PF!
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!
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?
GarageDweller
GarageDweller is offline
#3
Jun23-12, 03:21 AM
P: 104
oops, missed that

GarageDweller
GarageDweller is offline
#4
Jun23-12, 03:41 AM
P: 104

Galilean transform and the maxwell equations


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' ??
tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#5
Jun23-12, 04:32 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167
(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box )
Quote Quote by GarageDweller View Post
∂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'

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]
GarageDweller
GarageDweller is offline
#6
Jun23-12, 04:38 AM
P: 104
Ooh right forgot bout the charge density term, thx 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'?
tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#7
Jun23-12, 05:00 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167
Quote Quote by GarageDweller View Post
So basically the lorentz factors all get canceled and the J terms go away on either side?
sorry, not following you

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)
Muphrid
Muphrid is offline
#8
Jun23-12, 11:09 AM
P: 834
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.)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Galilean invariance of Maxwell equation Classical Physics 5
Galilean transform of the Laplacian Advanced Physics Homework 4
Wave equation under a Galilean transform. Introductory Physics Homework 1
Lorentz Invariance and Non-Galilean Invariance of Maxwell's Equations Classical Physics 4
Galilean invariance (and Maxwell's equations) Classical Physics 7