Invariant under Lorentz transformation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating the invariance of the expression B² - E²/C² under Lorentz transformations, focusing on electromagnetic fields E and B. Participants explore the mathematical manipulation required to show this invariance, including the use of transformation equations for the electric and magnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the expression B² - E²/C² and attempts to manipulate it using Lorentz transformation equations for E and B, expressing difficulty in achieving the desired result.
  • Another participant suggests simplifying the problem by rotating the coordinate system but later retracts this suggestion, indicating potential complications.
  • A different participant points out a possible issue with unit systems, suggesting that the problem may involve different units (SI vs. Gaussian) and notes discrepancies in the transformed equations.
  • Another participant proposes using hyperbolic functions to express the relationships involving γ (gamma) and v, suggesting this may clarify the identities involved.
  • A participant identifies errors in the signs and factors of c in the transformation equations provided by the original poster and offers corrected equations for further manipulation.
  • One participant later confirms they successfully manipulated the equations after correcting the signs, indicating progress in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the correct transformation equations initially, as participants identify errors and propose different approaches. However, one participant later confirms success after making corrections, suggesting some agreement on the need for accurate transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations related to unit systems and the correctness of transformation equations, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

Spook
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
HI guys first post :cool:

I need to show that

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2[/tex] is invariant under Lorentz transformation (E and B are electromagnetic fields)

now:

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2)[/tex]

and

[tex]E'_x=E_x[/tex]
[tex]E'_y=\gamma(E_y-\frac{v}{c}B_z)[/tex]
[tex]E'_z=\gamma(E_z-\frac{v}{c}B_y)[/tex]
[tex]B'_x=B_x[/tex]
[tex]B'_y=\gamma(B_y+\frac{v}{c}E_z)[/tex]
[tex]B'_z=\gamma(B_z+\frac{v}{c}E_y)[/tex]

but i can't manupilate it to give me the correct answer ie

[tex]B'^2-E'^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2[/tex]

Can anyone help me out? Basically because of the [tex]\gamma^2[/tex] term I am tring to factorise out a [tex]1-\frac{v^2}{C^2}[/tex] ie [tex](1/\gamma^2)[/tex] but I am having no joy.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, you can make things less complicated by rotating the coordinate system so that E = exEx (or, just as well, eyEy or ezEz). (EDIT: I TAKE IT BACK; NO YOU SHOULDN'T DO THIS.) I'll give it a more thorough look to see if I can find your problem.

The first suspicion I have is that the problem is stated in a different unit system (SI) than you are using in your solution (Gaussian?). In the SI units, E has the same units as cB (or E/c as B), but your transformed components add E to (v/c)B, so the units don't seem like they agree.

I get a (+) sign in front of the B term in my transformed Ez'. I think this makes sense, because the orientation of z to y is the opposite of the orientation of y to z (wrt rotation about the x axis).
 
Last edited:
Dont make it anymore complicated than it needs to be :p. Its a direct substitution problem ie change E to E' and B to B' and using the transformed values show that [tex]B^2-E^2/C^2=B'^2-E'^2/C^2[/tex]
 
In my experience, identities involving [tex]\gamma[/tex] and [tex]v[/tex] are more recognizable if you use the hyperbolic functions.

Write [tex]v = \tanh\theta[/tex] and [tex]\gamma =\cosh\theta[/tex], where [tex]\theta[/tex] is the rapidity. Of course, [tex]\gamma v = \sinh\theta[/tex].

[tex]\exp\theta[/tex] has physical significance, as well.
 
Spook said:
HI guys first post :cool:

I need to show that

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2[/tex] is invariant under Lorentz transformation (E and B are electromagnetic fields)

now:

[tex]B^2-E^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2)[/tex]

and

[tex]E'_x=E_x[/tex]
[tex]E'_y=\gamma(E_y-\frac{v}{c}B_z)[/tex]
[tex]E'_z=\gamma(E_z-\frac{v}{c}B_y)[/tex]
[tex]B'_x=B_x[/tex]
[tex]B'_y=\gamma(B_y+\frac{v}{c}E_z)[/tex]
[tex]B'_z=\gamma(B_z+\frac{v}{c}E_y)[/tex]

but i can't manupilate it to give me the correct answer ie

[tex]B'^2-E'^2/C^2=B^2_x+B^2_y+B^2_z-E^2_x/C^2-E^2_y/C^2-E^2_z/C^2[/tex]

Can anyone help me out? Basically because of the [tex]\gamma^2[/tex] term I am tring to factorise out a [tex]1-\frac{v^2}{C^2}[/tex] ie [tex](1/\gamma^2)[/tex] but I am having no joy.

A couple of your equations have wrong signs(and wrong factors of c depending on your choice of units). They should be

[tex]E'_x=E_x[/tex]
[tex]E'_y=\gamma(E_{y}-vB_{z})[/tex]
[tex]E'_z=\gamma(E_{z}+vB_{y})[/tex]
[tex]B'_x=B_x[/tex]
[tex]B'_y=\gamma(B_y+\frac{v}{c^2}E_z)[/tex]
[tex]B'_z=\gamma(B_z-\frac{v}{c^2}E_y)[/tex]

Adjust the signs and try again.
 
Yes thanks I forgot to report back that I had done it successfully. The annoying thing was I actually looked up the equations on a website so assumed they were correct.
 
Spook said:
Yes thanks I forgot to report back that I had done it successfully. The annoying thing was I actually looked up the equations on a website so assumed they were correct.

LOL. Out of curiosity what was the website? About assuming website physics as accurate, check out the link
http://www.crank.net/physics.html
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
10K