Covariance of Maxwell Eqn. - conceptual question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the covariance of Maxwell's equations under Lorentz transformations, focusing on the transformation properties of the electromagnetic field tensor and the electric and magnetic fields. Participants explore the implications of these transformations and the circular reasoning involved in deriving them.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to demonstrate that Maxwell's equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations without assuming the tensorial nature of the electromagnetic field tensor F.
  • The same participant notes that while the transformation properties of the charge density and current density can be established, the transformation of F remains unproven, leading to a circular argument.
  • Another participant suggests starting with a hypothetical equation involving F and showing that it leads to Maxwell's equations, thereby inferring the transformations of E and B from F.
  • A different participant argues that identifying the hypothetical equation with Maxwell's equations is limited to a single reference frame, emphasizing the need to understand how F transforms to determine E and B transformations.
  • This participant also expresses a belief that the focus on reference frame transformations may be excessive, comparing it to understanding vector transformations under rotations.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that starting with the tensor F and its transformation properties can clarify how E and B transform, asserting that all true tensors of the same signature transform similarly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the approach to demonstrating the covariance of Maxwell's equations and the transformation properties of the fields involved. There is no consensus on a definitive method or resolution to the circular reasoning issue presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexities and assumptions involved in deriving transformation properties, with participants noting the potential circularity in the arguments presented.

Mrbeekle
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey all,

This has been bugging me for quite a while now. My question is essentially about how one shows that Maxwell equations are invariant under Lorentz transforms. Writing them in index notation, it is usually appealed to that all terms involved are Lorentz tensors (or contractions thereof), and therefore the covariance is manifest. This does, however, assume that we know the transformation properties of the objects in the equation i.e that they are tensorial.

For example, writing the source equations as:

d_u F^(uv) = j^v

we do indeed know that d_u transforms as a covariant 4-vector, directly from the definition of LT. We can also construct an argument to should that j^v (which has as components the charge density and current density) is a contravariant 4-vector, by considering how densities change under LT (i.e. length contraction) etc. However, the question still remains that we need to first show that F^(uv) is a tensor in order to state that Maxwell's equations are indeed invariant under LT. This problem reduces to showing that the E and B fields transform in certain ways, but how does one derive these transformation properties? All I can find in books and on the internet is people deriving the E and B field transformation properties FROM the tensorial nature of F^(uv) itself, which is viciously circular if you are trying to show that Maxwell's equations.

I have found a few specific arguments of people seeming to find these E and B transformation properties for specific physical situations, but nothing too convincing. I looked at Einstein's paper on SR (not the original 1905 one, but one a few years later), and in it he in fact essentially says "Maxwell's equations are invariant under LT if we assume that E and B transform as the following...". I cannot see how, without some other verification (theoretical or experimental) for those transformation laws, one can state that Maxwell's equations are invariant under LT.

Any help with this would be much appreciated - it's been bugging me for so long!

P.S. Please let me know if I should post this in the "Electrodynamics" section instead!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Would it suffice to you if we start with some hypothetical equation \partial_\mu F^{\mu \nu} = j^\nu and show that this equation yields the Maxwell equations, therefore the transformations of the components of F directly tell us about the transformations of the electric and magnetic fields?
 
Hi,

Thanks for your message. I cannot see how that helps, because identifying that equation with Maxwell's equations is fine, but that is all within a single reference frame. As soon as you go to another frame, you need to know how F transforms to be able to determine how E and B transform (and as far as I can tell, you need to know how E and B transform to actually be able to know how F transforms, i.e. tensorially, which is circular).
 
Mrbeekle said:
Hi,

Thanks for your message. I cannot see how that helps, because identifying that equation with Maxwell's equations is fine, but that is all within a single reference frame. As soon as you go to another frame, you need to know how F transforms to be able to determine how E and B transform (and as far as I can tell, you need to know how E and B transform to actually be able to know how F transforms, i.e. tensorially, which is circular).

This is by no means unique to you, but I think people in general get hung up on transforming between reference frames a bit too much. It's the SR equivalent of a rotation, and how often have you second-guessed how a vector transforms under a rotation?

(Admittedly, it's not wrong to wonder given that the entire topic is about electric and magnetic field vectors transforming, but my point is that this is like asking how the x and y components of a vector transform under a rotation--you get complicated formulas that mix the two together, but when you consider the vector as a whole, the picture becomes a lot more coherent.)

At any rate, I think the clearest picture is to start with some rank-2 tensor F that obeys \partial_u F^{\mu \nu} = j^\nu, identify that the various equations with respect to certain components generate Maxwell's equations, and from there conclude that F, which you already posited was a tensor, is the the unique object that combines the electric and magnetic fields in a covariant manner.

Basically, you start with how F transforms and conclude how E and B transform as a result. This is not as sketchy as it sounds because all true tensors of the same signature transform in the same way; the bigger leap is puzzling out what kind of tensor subsumes the electric and magnetic fields.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K