Electromagnetic wave equation not invariant under galilean trans.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the electromagnetic wave equation is not invariant under Galilean transformation. The equation involves partial derivatives with respect to spatial and temporal variables, and the context is rooted in electromagnetic theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the chain rule for partial derivatives in the context of the wave equation. There are attempts to clarify how to handle the transformation of the x-component while considering the other components as unchanged. Some participants express uncertainty about the correct application of derivatives and transformations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different aspects of the transformation and its implications for the wave equation. Hints and partial insights have been shared, but no consensus or complete resolution has emerged yet.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific components of the equation that can be ignored during transformation, and participants are grappling with the implications of these assumptions. The original poster notes the need to apply the chain rule, indicating a focus on mathematical manipulation rather than conceptual understanding.

bfusco
Messages
126
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Prove that the electromagnetic wave equation: 
(d^2ψ)/(dx^2) + (d^2ψ)/dy^2) + (d^2ψ)/(dz^2) − (1/c^2) * [(d^2ψ)/(dt^2)]= 0 is NOT invariant under Galilean transformation. (i.e., the equation does NOT have the same form for a moving observer moving at speed of, say, v in the x direction).

*note: all the "d"s in this equation are the partial derivatives.


Homework Equations


galilean transformation:
t'=t, x'=x-vt, y'=y, z'=z

The Attempt at a Solution


-from what i understand to solve this involves the chain rule for partial derivatives.
-looking at the equation i can't help but jump to something with the gradient of ∇ψ, but i don't know where to go from there.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The y,z,t components in the equation just stay the same, you can ignore them. You just have to change the x-component.
Hint: It will get an additional t-component afterwards.
 
d/dx(dψ/dx' * dx'/dt + dψ/dt' * dt'/d(something)) ?
 
bfusco said:
d/dx(dψ/dx' * dx'/dt + dψ/dt' * dt'/d(something)) ?

wait is it d/dx(dψ/dx' * dx'/dx + dψ/dt' * dt'/dx), which equals d/dx(dψ/dx' * 1 + dψ/dt' * 0)?
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K